• 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?

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
The Planet Kolob | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs
www.top10craziestmormonbeliefs.com/a/93
Dec 15, 2011 · The planet Kolob and the song about it. Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published by Latter Day Saint (LDS) prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne or residence of God.


You think our beliefs are crazy? Fine. go ahead and believe that they are crazy.

We are not, however, 'forcing them' on you.

Oh...Kolob is a star, not a planet. If you ARE going to call our beliefs crazy, it would be good to figure out what they actually are.

Oh, and while you are at it, where are the other nine crazy beliefs? Because the site you are sending us to only mentions one.

Please excuse me, now, because this is idiotic. Why, when I am defending the idea that science is a good thing, and that religion and science can actually NOT damage one another, is the topic turning to 'mock the beliefs of the Mormons?"

As it happens, sooda, Latter-day saints are the only religious group where the more educated one is, the more likely one is to remain a faithful believer. That's because WE don't have a problem with science and technological advancement, or looking at things that other religions might balk at.

No 'flat earth' LDS. Few (I can't say 'no,' because I've actually met one or two) young earth creationists or 24 hour 7 day creationists. There is no requirement that we be biblical literalists,...or that we NOT be. We get to make up our own minds about that. The vast majority of us are...not.

So you want to make fun of our 'crazy beliefs" G'head.

When you get that out of your system, how about getting back to the thread topic?

Which is, btw, about whether science and religion can 'mix.'

I wouldn't say 'mix...' but 'not contradict?" Yeah. That I can say. Y'know, like learning how to dye yarn with onion skins doesn't contradict deep analysis of Walter Whitman.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
No I don't really think that - I just like the word presumptuous...it kinda sounds like we are preparing to enjoy a feast...don't you think? Pre-sumptuous...:D

But I think you are missing my point...what I am saying is that whatever we understand about what God has revealed (if God has revealed anything at all) is necessarily limited by the human mental faculties we are endowed with - isn't it? How could that not be the case? And how, then, could God reveal anything to our mental faculties that our mental faculties are incapable of processing? So "God's Word" then becomes a 'guide' for our mental (and perhaps in turn, spiritual) faculties to go as far as they can in appreciating the ultimately ineffable, indescribable grandness of "God" not a defining, delimiting encapsulation of what God is or what God does - let alone why. (John 1:18; 1Timothy 6:16). Any of those 'answers' must be couched in terms that are accessible to the human intellect - that's presumably why Jesus (as the 'Word' embodied) is "the Son of Man" as well as the "Son of God" - there is no way a book (no matter what its source) written in human language can possibly exhaust the reality of God (if there is one). There is no way a human, no matter how s/he acquires the information, can possibly apprehend the motives of a divine creator (if there is one). I think...but its fine if you think its presumptuous to limit the human understanding of God to what humans can understand... maybe that's true...maybe it is presumptuous...but how can a human honestly see it any other way than through human eyes?

Well....wouldn't God know that and 'make allowances?"

One does not teach a three year old about the origin of stars the way one would teach a post-grad in astronomy, after all. Perhaps enough, and simply enough, to pique interest so that as the child gets older and more able to understand, he also is ready to understand more.

As for whether we can understand, ourselves....well...

It seems that several people in here have decided that attacking my belief system is an appropriate use of the thread. (shrug)

Whether it is or not, I will mention this: my belief system tells us that we are, quite literally, the children of God. His offspring. As in...we are very much in the position of that three year old. We may not be able to 'get' everything now, but someday?

Yes. We will understand because we may be like Him.

What that means in terms of religion vs. science is this: we rather believe that God WANTS us to figure out how "God did it,' because the methods He used to create the universe, and the laws by which the universe works, are understandable.

At least, we're trying...and that's not a bad thing at all. Finding out how a clock works, and perhaps even learning how to build one ourselves does NOT mean that there was no 'clockmaker' in the first place. (no, that's not an argument for ID, specifically...don't take the analogy further than it goes).

Finding out how the universe works does NOT mean that it was not created by God.

We may, or may not, be able to understand everything now. I believe, however, that someday we will be able to do so. Because we are His children.

And He has commanded us to go find out stuff.

That's what 'science' is for.

Win/win, right?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would call that a non sequitur.

You are free to see it how you wish to. My comment is based on thoughts such as this;

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." – Max Planck

Thus the animating force of our being, is Intelligence and I see it is this intelligence that also shared this with us, it is what motivated my comment;

"..Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God is endowed with such potency as can instill new life into every human frame, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth. All the wondrous works ye behold in this world have been manifested through the operation of His supreme and most exalted Will, His wondrous and inflexible Purpose. Through the mere revelation of the word “Fashioner,” issuing forth from His lips and proclaiming His attribute to mankind, such power is released as can generate, through successive ages, all the manifold arts which the hands of man can produce. This, verily, is a certain truth. No sooner is this resplendent word uttered, than its animating energies, stirring within all created things, give birth to the means and instruments whereby such arts can be produced and perfected. All the wondrous achievements ye now witness are the direct consequences of the Revelation of this Name. In the days to come, ye will, verily, behold things of which ye have never heard before. Thus hath it been decreed in the Tablets of God, and none can comprehend it except them whose sight is sharp. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 141-142.

Regards Tony
 

siti

Well-Known Member
One does not teach a three year old about the origin of stars the way one would teach a post-grad in astronomy, after all. Perhaps enough, and simply enough, to pique interest so that as the child gets older and more able to understand, he also is ready to understand more.
That's a good analogy...and kind of what I meant in terms of "revealed truth" - revealed (if it is revealed) truth (if it is truth) is meant (if it is meant to do anything) to pique our interest. The 'last word' - for each "Child of God" - I think would be a matter of the spiritual experience of that person - the Bible (or whatever scriptural tradition one follows) is not the last word on God - its the first - the starter - the "My First Book..." that sets us off on our spiritual quest. If it is meant to be the 'last word', then I think one can only assume that it is wrong...but if it is meant to be a somewhat metaphorical story to pique the interest, then it retains great value - even for people who are not members of this or that church or this or that religion. And it never loses that value - even when we are mature and become such as need 'meat not milk' (1Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12) we can still appreciate and see 'new' ways of reading it - just like we do when we read Dr Seuss first as children, then as parents, and then again as grandparents...I think.

PS - I am sorry that some have seen this thread as an opportunity to attack your church. That certainly is not my intent. I do want to challenge assumptions though - including my own - and although I am sure we will not quite agree with one another, its good that we have the opportunity to compare notes don't you think?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
One might think about the scab lands of eastern Washington, and how long it took scientists to get over their distaste of catastrophic geological events (such as floods) so that they could figure out that the ancient flood stories of the native Americans might be accounts of actual events; that the scab lands really are the result of one...and more than one...catastrophic flood, such as is spoken of in mythology. Accepting that sometimes this happens is NOT the same thing as swallowing the tale of Noah whole.

One must be very careful NOT to utterly dismiss information from the 'other side,' BECAUSE it is from 'the other side.'

But as I understand, the floods at the scablands occurred before the Native Americans arrived at the American continents.

Second, it is impossible to date anything of the American Indian myths, because they don’t date any event. So you cannot know if the event to their a couple of hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, 5000 years ago or 10,000.

So all you can do is to speculate when. But you don’t know, nor could the Native Americans themselves.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
My comment is based on thoughts such as this;

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." – Max Planck

Thus the animating force of our being, is Intelligence
Now Tony! You must be careful not to confuse the musings of scientists for science...there is no science in this quote at all...there is, to date, no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the notion that consciousness and intelligence have anything to do with how atoms (and things) seem to emerge from apparently 'immaterial' 'fields'. One can choose to believe it if one wishes, but this is not science. This is not a counterbalance to faith, it IS faith - or rather conjecture. In any case, why do you suppose Planck thought "we must assume...a conscious and intelligent Mind" behind it? Do forces need intelligence or consciousness? When a meteor falls to earth under gravity, does it need a conscious mind to guide the force driving it? Or does it just fall naturally?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
If I attributed the same observational movement of the matter of the universe, not to dark matter and dark energy, but to the breath of God, but I could not show God's breath in the lab,
You have out-dated information. Look, here is the actions of God in the Lab, which my papers do support mathematically (I am submitting the papers to top physics journals now).

 

We Never Know

No Slack
The attempt to heal the old separation
between heart (faith) and mind (science).
Everyone has the right to choose.
But not a sinful choice! The God
of the Bible cursed those who chose
sin! Freedom is defined as action
within God's laws. That is why even ordinary
criminals are not free, but instead sit in prisons.

Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

Believer Isaac Newton introduced the second law: the acceleration of the body to its mass is equal to the physical force acting on the body: a m = F, and I give place to Free Will and God, inserting there spiritual force D, namely a m = F + D. Evidence, that spiritual force is not always equal to zero, is published by me in this peer-reviewed article: On the value of David Bohms Quantum Mechanics - IJSER Journal Publication The only problem is that the magazine prints everything the author pays for.

But you can write into the arXiv.org. They publish many articles on spiritual topics (enter in the search engine a spiritual words: God, angel, faith ...). However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science. Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God, since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”. And I proved God: only the All-Knowing can be confident in His reality, and not illusory. After all, the illusion of something is a violation of the Logic of Aristotle, and if a star in the Universe violates logic, then this casts doubt on the reality of the whole world. The All-Knowing knows about own existence, therefore the existence of God is a part of knowledge, and even its basis and definition: it was the God of Truth who, through talented men, founded science as the path to Himself.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science. Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story. The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.

Science and religion can mix as easy as black and white. Its idiot humans that think one is better than the other and fight with all means to stop the mixture. Of course that's my opinion.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No. If faith is to truth, why are there so many faiths out there, even within individual religions?
Paradise is Lost. But God has single faith and single knowledge within own mind.
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." Luke 12:51.

This is the quote from my paper, which I try to publish in a Philosophy journal, see the file attached:

"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." 1 John 4:20. Love God, but hate satan. Because they are sources of Love and hate and accordingly, the satan accepts only hate towards himself from you. The satan hates whose, who love the satan. The only hope to get "love" and "respect" from satan is to hate him, while serving his evil goals: “Erasure - Love To Hate You”


That is why even ordinary females dislike whose males, who very strongly love them. Love or Hate, there is no other option (because satan can only hate), thus, indifference (tolerance to sin; and frigidity) is form of silent hate.
 

Attachments

  • philosENG.pdf
    38 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Now Tony! You must be careful not to confuse the musings of scientists for science...there is no science in this quote at all...there is, to date, no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the notion that consciousness and intelligence have anything to do with how atoms (and things) seem to emerge from apparently 'immaterial' 'fields'. One can choose to believe it if one wishes, but this is not science. This is not a counterbalance to faith, it IS faith - or rather conjecture. In any case, why do you suppose Planck thought "we must assume...a conscious and intelligent Mind" behind it? Do forces need intelligence or consciousness? When a meteor falls to earth under gravity, does it need a conscious mind to guide the force driving it? Or does it just fall naturally?

Well I think it was because he was intelligent. The remainder, they are all questions for you to contemplate. Personally, I see it all has meaning for us to find.

Regards Tony
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Oh, for the love of...

The Innuits have one. The Blackfeet have one. the native Americans around Yellowstone have one...well, that one is about a flood averted because the people became righteous...there are quite a few flood myths in ancient American tribes, understandable given the sort of flooding that is natural on the Missouri, the Mississippi, the Snake and the Colombia, never mind the constant filling and catastrophic draining of Lake Bonneville (leaving the Great Salt Lake behind). Are you going to claim that there were no such stories?

Why? That's as silly as claiming that natural phenomena do not prompt mythology in any group of people. Given that mythology is often an attempt to explain misunderstood natural events, that would be extremely silly. I mean, really; is it even possible that there would be no flood stories in northern American native narratives? What...that they would all completely ignore such events?

The rejection of Bretz's concept was, in part, because Bretz could not propose a source for the massive amounts of water needed to produce the landscape. If there was no water source, then science was correct in setting aside the concept.

Except of course that BECAUSE the idea would SEEM to support a catastrophic flood (and hence MIGHT support the world wide flood narrative, though of course it doesn't) then nobody looked for such a source. That source was, for all intents and purposes, found accidentally. Those who would actually LOOK for it were treated like the lookers for Bigfoot. Credibility killer.

The same thing happened with the Big Bang, which got it's name because Hoyle was making fun of it.............and a big part of his objection was that the 'Big Bang' might SEEM to support the 'something out of nothing' creation stories beloved by Abrahamic theists. Scientists simply don't want to go there, even if the evidence takes them in that direction.

Finding the source of the flood waters was....wow...

An accident and everybody tiptoed around it. EVEN THOUGH that particular set of floods had absolutely nothing to do with any world wide deluge; for one thing, there were several of 'em.

The thing is, scientists shouldn't be afraid that evidence gathered MIGHT lead them into something that MIGHT support a theistic narrative. For one thing, it can't. Having a catastrophic event occur doesn't mean that God threw thunderbolts.

Having an ice dam hold back a lake....and suddenly fail, sending catastrophic floods of water to the Pacific, and then recur several times as the ice age ebbed and flowed...does NOT mean that Noah had a dock there.[/QUOTE]

The Scablands were formed a million years before there were any American Indians. Their myths about a flood might be entertaining, but no more true than the bible story about Sodom and Gomorrah.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
That's a good analogy...and kind of what I meant in terms of "revealed truth" - revealed (if it is revealed) truth (if it is truth) is meant (if it is meant to do anything) to pique our interest. The 'last word' - for each "Child of God" - I think would be a matter of the spiritual experience of that person - the Bible (or whatever scriptural tradition one follows) is not the last word on God - its the first - the starter - the "My First Book..." that sets us off on our spiritual quest. If it is meant to be the 'last word', then I think one can only assume that it is wrong...but if it is meant to be a somewhat metaphorical story to pique the interest, then it retains great value - even for people who are not members of this or that church or this or that religion. And it never loses that value - even when we are mature and become such as need 'meat not milk' (1Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12) we can still appreciate and see 'new' ways of reading it - just like we do when we read Dr Seuss first as children, then as parents, and then again as grandparents...I think.

PS - I am sorry that some have seen this thread as an opportunity to attack your church. That certainly is not my intent. I do want to challenge assumptions though - including my own - and although I am sure we will not quite agree with one another, its good that we have the opportunity to compare notes don't you think?

I agree with you.

My own faith tradition has a very similar view of scripture. Of course, we ARE weird...and believe in ongoing revelation, both public and personal...

(grin)

Sometimes its good, early in the morning, to sit down and read a post one cannot argue with. ;) Good start to a peaceful day.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
But as I understand, the floods at the scablands occurred before the Native Americans arrived at the American continents.

Yes.

But the emptying of Lake Bonneville wasn't.

Do you realize what you...and at least one other, is doing here? Y'all are grabbing the timeline and breathing a huge sigh of relief; OF COURSE native Americans didn't see the scablands form....that happened so long ago, so OF COURSE we don't have to pay any attention to flood narratives.

I don't get it. It's not as if those flood narratives have to be accepted AS factual creation stories; just that, oh, hey, this group of people has a story about an event, and this event seems to be referred to among many different peoples. Could such an event actually have happened, and imbedded itself in the culture? Doesn't mean that the event was caused by 'turtles all the way down.'

But y'all are so scared of looking at the mythology of any culture that y'all will determine that IF cultural mythology acknowledges such an event, then OF COURSE the event didn't happen, or didn't happen in any way similar to the narrative either in time or violence.

Makes me want to throw things. It's JUST like a young earth creationist deciding that dinosaurs absolutely did not really exist...or else that God put the fossils in the ground to mess with our heads, or that those fossils were REALLY fire breathing dragons put paid to by St. George. Why are the two sides so deathly afraid of the other? Makes no sense.

It's like...Pecos Bill riding the twister until it got too tired to 'blow,' creating the Grand Canyon along the way....we all know, even those who make up stories about Pecos Bill, that this isn't how the Grand Canyon was made, but it tells a fun story anyway. Now what's happening here is like folks deciding that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist BECAUSE someone made up a story about Pecos Bill.

Or that a Pecos Bill fan has decided that since Bill dug the Grand Canyon with a Twister, that no evidence to the contrary can be looked at.

The canyon is there. Just because mythology refers to it in some way doesn't mean it isn't.

Just because flood narratives attempt to explain the scab lands doesn't mean that the scab lands were not formed by catastrophic floods, rather than gradual erosion. Get your heads out of your preconceptions and LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. All of it. Don't be afraid of it. Mythological stories don't explain physical facts. They may well refer to real events, though.

Just because something like the Big Bang MIGHT tend to support the 'creation ex nihilo' idea of religion (something I don't believe in, btw) does not automatically mean that it is not true. Just because flood narratives MIGHT support the idea of local catastrophic floods altering the geology drastically does NOT mean that they didn't happen. Sheesh.

Second, it is impossible to date anything of the American Indian myths, because they don’t date any event. So you cannot know if the event to their a couple of hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, 5000 years ago or 10,000.

Yes. So?



So all you can do is to speculate when. But you don’t know, nor could the Native Americans themselves.

Yes. So?

I'm not talking about taking such narratives as fact INSTEAD of geology.

I'm talking here about scientists being so afraid of mythological narratives that the mere mention of a cause or event in such narratives puts a huge brick wall in front of any investigation that MIGHT seem to support them.

Like the catastrophic flood theory of the scab lands. Looking at them, it's pretty obvious that they were the result of catastrophic flooding, even to me, and I'm an English teacher. Yet such an idea was anathema to geologists for years...BECAUSE the possibility of catastrophic flooding was mentioned in mythological narratives.

Didn't matter about the time line. Didn't matter about the possibility of human witnesses. All that mattered was that the possibility was mentioned in mythology; ergo, impossible. Don't go there. Your career will be ruined. You will be laughed at. If catastrophic floods are mentioned anywhere in mythology as a cause for anything, then catastrophic floods simply didn't happen. Period.

Except that they did.

And THAT they did (whisper this) does NOT mean that Noah floated around on a boat over the planet. It MIGHT mean that someone way back when noticed something interesting and explained that interesting thing with a 'creation story,' and it stuck in the culture.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
The Scablands were formed a million years before there were any American Indians. Their myths about a flood might be entertaining, but no more true than the bible story about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Turns out, though, that those flood narratives explaining the scab lands (those that referred to catastrophic flooding as the cause) were actually what happened. Catastrophic flooding.

What I am talking about here is this: if scientists weren't so sure that anything mentioned in mythology is automatically false, didn't happen, wrong...then the discovery of that recurring ice dam and the floods causing the scab lands would have been made much earlier, and the man who finally put everything together wouldn't have been so nervous about doing so.

Because scientists seem to be so certain that anything mentioned in mythology (read...'religion') MUST BE FALSE. As in...no need to look there for anything, and even if the evidence takes you in that direction, DON'T GO THERE.

And the bible story about Sodom and Gomorrah...the reason behind their destruction...might be more about the 'why' and the moral lessons, but that doesn't mean that cities that might or might not be Sodom and Gomorrah were rather suddenly destroyed, does it?

Yet the controversy surrounding those cities still rages; and plenty of scientists still insist that those cities never existed; that the mere mention of them in the Bible is proof that they didn't.

I honestly do not see a difference between that attitude and the one about God putting dinosaur fossils in the ground to test the faith of believers.

There IS no difference.

Both sides are stupid. Science and religion use different 'tools' to get information. They are after very different aims and come to different conclusions. That's fine. That's the way it is supposed to be. For scientists to decide that if religion talks about 'it,' then 'it' is wrong, never happened, doesn't count, shouldn't even be LOOKED at for what information is applicable?

Dumb.

JUST as dumb as the theist who figures that if his scriptures say it is 'turtles all the way down,' then anything which MIGHT tend to go against that idea must not be examined.

No difference.

Arrgghhh.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Turns out, though, that those flood narratives explaining the scab lands (those that referred to catastrophic flooding as the cause) were actually what happened. Catastrophic flooding.

What I am talking about here is this: if scientists weren't so sure that anything mentioned in mythology is automatically false, didn't happen, wrong...then the discovery of that recurring ice dam and the floods causing the scab lands would have been made much earlier, and the man who finally put everything together wouldn't have been so nervous about doing so.

Because scientists seem to be so certain that anything mentioned in mythology (read...'religion') MUST BE FALSE. As in...no need to look there for anything, and even if the evidence takes you in that direction, DON'T GO THERE.

And the bible story about Sodom and Gomorrah...the reason behind their destruction...might be more about the 'why' and the moral lessons, but that doesn't mean that cities that might or might not be Sodom and Gomorrah were rather suddenly destroyed, does it?

Yet the controversy surrounding those cities still rages; and plenty of scientists still insist that those cities never existed; that the mere mention of them in the Bible is proof that they didn't.

I honestly do not see a difference between that attitude and the one about God putting dinosaur fossils in the ground to test the faith of believers.

There IS no difference.

Both sides are stupid. Science and religion use different 'tools' to get information. They are after very different aims and come to different conclusions. That's fine. That's the way it is supposed to be. For scientists to decide that if religion talks about 'it,' then 'it' is wrong, never happened, doesn't count, shouldn't even be LOOKED at for what information is applicable?

Dumb.

JUST as dumb as the theist who figures that if his scriptures say it is 'turtles all the way down,' then anything which MIGHT tend to go against that idea must not be examined.

No difference.

Arrgghhh.

There were NO Indians around a million years ago to tell the story of the Scabland floods just like there is no evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is NOT the fault of scientists.

The Bible is what it is.. and its NOT science or history.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
There were NO Indians around a million years ago to tell the story of the Scabland floods just like there is no evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is NOT the fault of scientists.

The Bible is what it is.. and its NOT science or history.

No, it's not science. History? Well, it can be seen as that, but it's not primarily history any more than Beowulf and/or the Arthurian sagas are. That's fine. Not a problem. That's not what scriptures are FOR.

...and no, there were no humans around a million years ago to tell the story of the scab land floods. So what? When they DID show up, they saw the scab lands, came up with an explanation for them that, er, just happened to be RIGHT, (about the catastrophic part, if not the reasons behind the floods or who was responsible) and because they simply addressed the issue at all, their stories were completely ignored. More than ignored. Their explanations were deemed to be impossible, and so the mere idea of catastrophic floods was dismissed. BECAUSE the possibility was mentioned in native American narratives.

As far as "no evidence' of Sodom and Gomorrah....baloney.

We have plenty of archeological evidence of cities which were destroyed to the point that the area was deserted for six to seven hundred years. We have the geological evidence of a sort of meteor strike/ Tunguska like event that would have done it. We have the cities that absolutely WERE destroyed in that manner.

Are these cities Sodom and Gomorrah? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But scientists won't even look at the possibility, BECAUSE Sodom and Gomorrah were mentioned in the Bible. Did God destroy them because of their wickedness? Maybe, maybe not; THAT is the purview of religion, THAT there were a couple of cities in the area where Sodom, etc., would have been which were destroyed by some catastrophic event? Well, yeah. We have plenty of evidence for that.

So...why not name them Sodom and Gomorrah? What would be destroyed if it turns out that the story of that level of destruction stayed in the cultural consciousness?

Does identifying the cities, and admitting that they were probably destroyed by some..perhaps...meteorite or 'burst,' like in Tunguka or as happened in Russia a few years ago? How does doing that prove that God nuked 'em because they were wicked?

Get a grip. OF COURSE cultures would see events like this, geological formations (like the scab lands) and try to explain them. They were humans, like us, and NOT stupid. The native Americans who saw the scab lands and were familiar with the way a flood leaves an area would recognize the evidence. It is modern scientists who dismiss any and everything that they didn't come up with, because it is couched in other than peer reviewed form, who are being stupid.

And again, I see no difference between that attitude and that of the young earth creationists who utterly refuse to look at any modern scientific explanation of anything. Both attitudes come from the same complete and utter blind bias.

Religion isn't about how. It's about 'why.' Science is about processes, not morality. Don't confuse the two.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
No, it's not science. History? Well, it can be seen as that, but it's not primarily history any more than Beowulf and/or the Arthurian sagas are. That's fine. Not a problem. That's not what scriptures are FOR.

...and no, there were no humans around a million years ago to tell the story of the scab land floods. So what? When they DID show up, they saw the scab lands, came up with an explanation for them that, er, just happened to be RIGHT, (about the catastrophic part, if not the reasons behind the floods or who was responsible) and because they simply addressed the issue at all, their stories were completely ignored. More than ignored. Their explanations were deemed to be impossible, and so the mere idea of catastrophic floods was dismissed. BECAUSE the possibility was mentioned in native American narratives.

As far as "no evidence' of Sodom and Gomorrah....baloney.

We have plenty of archeological evidence of cities which were destroyed to the point that the area was deserted for six to seven hundred years. We have the geological evidence of a sort of meteor strike/ Tunguska like event that would have done it. We have the cities that absolutely WERE destroyed in that manner.

Are these cities Sodom and Gomorrah? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But scientists won't even look at the possibility, BECAUSE Sodom and Gomorrah were mentioned in the Bible. Did God destroy them because of their wickedness? Maybe, maybe not; THAT is the purview of religion, THAT there were a couple of cities in the area where Sodom, etc., would have been which were destroyed by some catastrophic event? Well, yeah. We have plenty of evidence for that.

So...why not name them Sodom and Gomorrah? What would be destroyed if it turns out that the story of that level of destruction stayed in the cultural consciousness?

Does identifying the cities, and admitting that they were probably destroyed by some..perhaps...meteorite or 'burst,' like in Tunguka or as happened in Russia a few years ago? How does doing that prove that God nuked 'em because they were wicked?

Get a grip. OF COURSE cultures would see events like this, geological formations (like the scab lands) and try to explain them. They were humans, like us, and NOT stupid. The native Americans who saw the scab lands and were familiar with the way a flood leaves an area would recognize the evidence. It is modern scientists who dismiss any and everything that they didn't come up with, because it is couched in other than peer reviewed form, who are being stupid.

And again, I see no difference between that attitude and that of the young earth creationists who utterly refuse to look at any modern scientific explanation of anything. Both attitudes come from the same complete and utter blind bias.

Religion isn't about how. It's about 'why.' Science is about processes, not morality. Don't confuse the two.

Archaeologists have been exploring for the cities of the plain for decades and have never found a tel.

If they existed at all they were gone long before Abraham and Lot.

Making up stories about a peculiar landscape is just that.. making up stories. I am not sure why you are lambasting scientists?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Archaeologists have been exploring for the cities of the plain for decades and have never found a tel.

If they existed at all they were gone long before Abraham and Lot.

Making up stories about a peculiar landscape is just that.. making up stories. I am not sure why you are lambasting scientists?

(sigh)

That's simply not true.

And I'm not lambasting scientists. It's scientists who are lambasting ME, for daring to suggest that there might be something of value in religious texts, and that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, any more than the study of British literature and astrophysics are mutually exclusive.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
(sigh)

That's simply not true.

And I'm not lambasting scientists. It's scientists who are lambasting ME, for daring to suggest that there might be something of value in religious texts, and that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, any more than the study of British literature and astrophysics are mutually exclusive.

Do you actually believe in Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood etc?
 
Top