The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most people see the Christian religion and science as incompatible......I believe that it depends on your interpretation of both. Both are compatible IMV without compromising one for the other, which many seem to want to do.

Does this mean that you've decided to accept science on, say, the issue of blood transfusions?

Are you willing to admit that in medical terms, they're useful and beneficial, and that the JW doctrine on this issue causes physical harm?

... or are you going to compromise the science?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Science and Religion will always be at odds because Religion causes us to assume answers before observation. Religions and Mythologies also asks us to push back against challenges to those first assumptions, which is an inherent fault in that system of thought.

It requires a lot of mental hoola-hooping to keep the two from being at odds with each other. The first paragraph of the OP attests to this.

 

[Deeje]

Does this mean that you've decided to accept science on, say, the issue of blood transfusions?

Are you willing to admit that in medical terms, they're useful and beneficial, and that the JW doctrine on this issue causes physical harm?

... or are you going to compromise the science?

I will go one better and demonstrate that blood transfusion medicine is not all it is cracked up to be.

Here is an Australian Government video outlining the dangers of blood transfusions and a rethink on the actual advantages of using alternate methods of saving lives.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will go one better and demonstrate that blood transfusion medicine is not all it is cracked up to be.

So compromising the science it is. Shame. Not that I expected any better, but still a shame.

Here is an Australian Government video outlining the dangers of blood transfusions and a rethink on the actual advantages of using alternate methods of saving lives.

That's a rather dishonest take on it. You didn't notice how they talked about methods to mitigate that risk, or how they acknowledge blood transfusions can save lives?

There's a big difference between "only use this intervention when it's appropriate" and "never use this intervention."

 

[Deeje]

So compromising the science it is. Shame. Not that I expected any better, but still a shame.

If you think that specialists in the field are compromising the science, then I suspect your hearing is extremely selective.

That's a rather dishonest take on it. You didn't notice how they talked about methods to mitigate that risk, or how they acknowledge blood transfusions can save lives?

Not taking blood can save more. Did you miss that part? How do we know that? Because that is our own experience, supported by many informed specialists in the field of bloodless medicine.

There's a big difference between "only use this intervention when it's appropriate" and "never use this intervention."

It doesn't surprise me that you would ignore the part that says that blood transfusions are responsible for more morbidity and mortality than any other medical procedure. Look up those two words. Would you want a therapy that had that reputation when you knew that alternate therapies with a better success rate were available?

Blood is like all other businesses that make lots of profit...they will promote it even when it is not best practice.

I suggest you watch it again for all the parts where surgeons themselves are saying that blood is not necessary in any surgical procedure. Watch the cytoscope vision again to see what a blood transfusion actually does to the body's circulatory system...then watch what happens when normal saline is used as a volume expander. That is the actual science....will you deny it?

You are talking out of your very prejudiced, conditioned opinion. You are not on the side of science in this instance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think that specialists in the field are compromising the science, then I suspect your hearing is extremely selective.

I don't think they're ompromising the science; I think you're misrepresenting them.

Not taking blood can save more. Did you miss that part? How do we know that? Because that is our own experience, supported by many informed specialists in the field of bloodless medicine.



It doesn't surprise me that you would ignore the part that says that blood transfusions are responsible for more morbidity and mortality than any other medical procedure. Look up those two words. Would you want a therapy that had that reputation when you knew that alternate therapies with a better success rate were available?

Blood is like all other businesses that make lots of profit...they will promote it even when it is not best practice.

I suggest you watch it again for all the parts where surgeons themselves are saying that blood is not necessary in any surgical procedure. Watch the cytoscope vision again to see what a blood transfusion actually does to the body's circulatory system...then watch what happens when normal saline is used as a volume expander. That is the actual science....will you deny it?

You are talking out of your very prejudiced, conditioned opinion. You are not on the side of science in this instance.

You do realize the context of the video, don't you? It was to make the case for their blood usage protocols. There are links to documents on the page you provided that describr these protocols. Have you read any of them?

The Australian blood usage protocol isn't "never, ever use blood product"; it's (simplistically) "only use whole blood when it's appropriate, keeping in mind the risks associated with it and the other options available, including other blood products."

It takes a special kind of either dishonesty or ignorance to argue that the Australian Blood Service is against the use of blood products.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will go one better and demonstrate that blood transfusion medicine is not all it is cracked up to be.

Here is an Australian Government video outlining the dangers of blood transfusions and a rethink on the actual advantages of using alternate methods of saving lives.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

Hate to say this bluntly, but I think that's the issue with all of your arguments on multiple topics is you get it from a third party. "The lie of many override the truth of one" I wrote down as my favorite self-created quote. Instead, actively understand both sides. Put yourself in both sides of the story.

Some of my family where saved by blood transfusions. Even if 1% out of 99% where saved from blood transfusions, that doesn't mean it isn't all what it's cracked up to be. Numbers mean nothing compared to saving people's lives. The government (US) doesn't believe that. They rather kill one person to save many rather than kill many to save one person. I disagree both ways; but, that's the world we live in.

Regardless of how our media and government (and other "groups" of silly people) portray a single topic, that doesn't mean "it is what it is." People today still think ASL is not a language and they don't use it or misuse it in our education system which, the language, would be beneficial to those who cannot hear. Many people go off of the education system (on form of government; group of people) without understanding the nature and culture of Deaf and deaf individuals.

We form opinions and base our morals (and interpretation of scripture) on misunderstood topics from abortion, homosexuality, to education, and this topic (what was it??.... ) ooh. blood transfusions. (I had a mental gap and was to lazy to scroll up). Some people still think seizures are literally invocations and movement of the holy spirit inside the person. They literally think you can get the holy spirit from a person having a "seizure" rather than Christ or god' and that's from a personal experience three years ago, I believe.

The Bible can be a useful tool to decide what's right and wrong. However, we need to understand the nature of the topic and interact for ourselves from a personal and both side perspective before using the Bible and any other source to judge such topics on.

I mean, short note, that's why I won't vote this election because of all the mess between the two candidates, I don't know what's what only what the media and news say. If I judged my morals and decision off of them (as you would the Austrilian government etc), I'd have bias all the way long without knowing who these people are not what people say about them.

 

[Blessed of JEHOVAH]

Hate to say this bluntly, but I think that's the issue with all of your arguments on multiple topics is you get it from a third party. "The lie of many override the truth of one" I wrote down as my favorite self-created quote. Instead, actively understand both sides. Put yourself in both sides of the story.

Some of my family where saved by blood transfusions. Even if 1% out of 99% where saved from blood transfusions, that doesn't mean it isn't all what it's cracked up to be. Numbers mean nothing compared to saving people's lives. The government (US) doesn't believe that. They rather kill one person to save many rather than kill many to save one person. I disagree both ways; but, that's the world we live in.

Regardless of how our media and government (and other "groups" of silly people) portray a single topic, that doesn't mean "it is what it is." People today still think ASL is not a language and they don't use it or misuse it in our education system which, the language, would be beneficial to those who cannot hear. Many people go off of the education system (on form of government; group of people) without understanding the nature and culture of Deaf and deaf individuals.

We form opinions and base our morals (and interpretation of scripture) on misunderstood topics from abortion, homosexuality, to education, and this topic (what was it??.... ) ooh. blood transfusions. (I had a mental gap and was to lazy to scroll up). Some people still think seizures are literally invocations and movement of the holy spirit inside the person. They literally think you can get the holy spirit from a person having a "seizure" rather than Christ or god' and that's from a personal experience three years ago, I believe.

The Bible can be a useful tool to decide what's right and wrong. However, we need to understand the nature of the topic and interact for ourselves from a personal and both side perspective before using the Bible and any other source to judge such topics on.

I mean, short note, that's why I won't vote this election because of all the mess between the two candidates, I don't know what's what only what the media and news say. If I judged my morals and decision off of them (as you would the Austrilian government etc), I'd have bias all the way long without knowing who these people are not what people say about them.

 

[Blessed of JEHOVAH]

When it comes to whether i listen to science or the bible i choose the bible. The bible is a book of practical wisdom. The world offers it's practical wisdom, but lets see what JEHOVAH has to say through Paul. In his word the bible he says 18. Let no one deceive himself : If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things let him become a fool so that he may become wise. 19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written '' He catches the wise in their own cunning.'' 20. And again: ''Jehovah knows that the reasoning of the wise men are futile.'' 1 Corinthians 3 : 19 - 20. He's saying if you think your wise with worldly wisdom replace it with the wisdom of the bible so that you may become wise. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. The best analogy i have is this: Who would you listen to someone out of MIT or someone out of preschool. The sad part is the gap is a lot farther than that. Also look at 1 Corinthians 1 : 19 , 20. It states 19)For it is written: ''I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish , and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.'' Where is the wise man? 20) Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? These scriptures also flow in harmony with what Jesus said when being tempted by satan. But he answered: '' It is written : 'Man must not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah's mouth.'' Mathew 4 : 4.

 

[Blessed of JEHOVAH]

Sorry on the last set of scriptures for Corinthians 19 , 20 the 20 is suppose to be in front of where is the wise man.

 

[Blessed of JEHOVAH]

When it comes to blood transfusions check out these scriptures.Pray to the father ( Jehovah ) in the name of ( Jesus ) the son asking for understanding of these scriptures. Exodus 15 : 26 ; (23 : 20 - 26 ) Deuteronomy 7 :12 - 15 ( 34 : 7 ) Joshua 14 : 6 - 11 ) 2 kings 20 : 1 - 6 ) 2 chronicles 16 : 12 , 13 ) Proverbs 3 : 5 - 8 , 4 : 20 - 22 See what the scriptures are saying what happens when you listen to the word of Jehovah doing what he says to do to the best of your ability and turning to him. The majority of people call God just that but when he revealed himself to Moses look what he says in my bible it states: 2) Then God said to Moses: ''I am Jehovah. 3) And I used to appear to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them. Exodus 6 : 2 , 3. As you can see he used to be referred to as God Almighty by the brothers in ancient times, but he made his name known to Moses and to the world through Moses. Also check out psalm 83 :18. It should say it there to. It does in my King James. I wrote to you out of my New World Translation. I did the research to be able to trust it. I also know it's not perfect , but nothing is. What i did learn was that acknowledging The father Jehovah and ending prayers in the name of Jesus is the beginning of unlocking the power of the Kingdom.

 

[Deeje]

I don't think they're ompromising the science; I think you're misrepresenting them.

The doctors quoted on the video are specialists in their field and very specific in their comments, so I believe you have exhibited selective hearing in this instance.

You do realize the context of the video, don't you? It was to make the case for their blood usage protocols. There are links to documents on the page you provided that describr these protocols. Have you read any of them?

Yes I have watched all of it. None of it cancels out anything that was said in the video. Blood is not good standard procedure....period.

Blood will continue to be used in medicine but the thrust of the video was that the way it is used and has been used in the past, killed and harmed more people than those who refused blood and opted for alternative procedures. Have you checked out these alternative methods which have a much higher success rate?

The Australian blood usage protocol isn't "never, ever use blood product"; it's (simplistically) "only use whole blood when it's appropriate, keeping in mind the risks associated with it and the other options available, including other blood products."

The procedures involving blood were greatly overshadowed by preference for the NON blood alternatives. Again you seem to be ignoring the cytoscope evidence of what happens to the human circulatory system when blood is administered.....rather than delivery of oxygen to the tissues and cells, the opposite takes place. Blood actually impedes the flow of oxygen carrying red cells, which causes more harm than good.
There is the science, but you are ignoring it because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe.....sound familiar?

I'd suggest you watch the video again....with your ears open this time.

Then I suggest you Google bloodless surgery and medicine. Hospitals devoted to the NON use of blood in all procedures have sprung up all over the world....why? Because they saw that JW patients recovered much faster without blood, than patients who had the same procedures with blood. Quicker recovery rates mean less time in hospital, less drugs, less time spent nursing patients, thus saving the government millions of dollars every year.

It takes a special kind of either dishonesty or ignorance to argue that the Australian Blood Service is against the use of blood products.

Or it takes a special kind of selective hearing to turn a warning into something that can be ignored. You are free to have all the blood you like.....that is your choice, but at least you know the dangers now.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe Science will always win, they have the facts, where as Christianity only have the Myth.

 

[AllenWalker]

Science will always be a loser, it cannot ever explain the why. Whereas, a divine reality is the winner.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are no contradictions between biblical claims and true science.

Really? Then you know very little about one or the other -- or more probably both! A bat is not a bird --okay? The Bible says it is, science says it's not. Score 1 for science. The sun could not have stood still for a day, the only way for that to happen (now that we know how the solar system works) is to stop the planet Earth's rotation in its tracks -- an event that would have caused catastrophic damage to everything. (Think about a fast car hitting a wall. What happens? The planet rotates at the equator over 1000 MPH. Stop that all at once and Joshua's guts would have been torn out of his body in an instant.

Let us be clear -- you are concerned with the Bible, and have extremely limited knowledge of science. You cannot make comparisons between one thing and another if you don't actually know anything at all about one of them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Science will always be a loser, it cannot ever explain the why. Whereas, a divine reality is the winner.

Rubbish! If the "why" is merely a human guess, it cannot be an explanation.

 

[AllenWalker]

Rubbish! If the "why" is merely a human guess, it cannot be an explanation.

It is not a human guess, it is truth.

 

[Skwim]

Science will always be a loser, it cannot ever [sic] explain the why.

"The why?" What is your idea of the why?

Whereas, a divine reality is the winner.

By which one can make up answers to the "whys?" all day long.


.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe Science will always win, they have the facts, where as Christianity only have the Myth.

Real science has facts. The TOE has no facts. What evidence do you have that Christianity is only a myth? I can prove more in the first chapter of Genesis than evolutionist have proven in 100+ years.

 

[omega2xx]

I honestly don't understand the debate between Christianity and science. If science is what we see with our natural eyes, theories of what we don't understand, and defining things from a "secular" perspective, from a Christian perspective, I'd assume that science is only describing creation and using human means to figure out the nature of it. Outside of that, I don't see the conflict.

The debate is not between science and Christianity. It is between evolution and Christianity. Real science proves/disproves theories. If the are proved, they become laws. That is why evolution is still called a theory.