Evolution

lol Don't get me started on the Catholic Church. I wrote enough in the Sanctuary sub-board to make my feelings clear on their beliefs and the unbiblical teachings of it.

Wait wait wait....have I said that scientists are wrong and deceitful? Read what I wrote. I merely asked if he identified as Christian but did not believe in the Biblical teachings. What I feel about scientists is simple. Science and scientists should never proclaim themselves to be infallible, for no human on this planet can ever be infallible (no, not even the Pope!), but I do not judge them sourly for their, or call them out-right wrong or deceitful. For the most part, most scientists I would say do their work for what they believe will help mankind. Of course some do not do this and some will do it for their own means to an end, but I'd like to think most do. I don't believe they are the work of the devil or whatever to sway us, I just believe in some cases although they can be guilty of being misguided they do their work for what they believe is better for humanity. Some of the ways in which science has been practised can be unbiblical (using Jewish victims to perform upon in Nazi Germany for example) but hopefully unjust practises can be eliminated. Whether science itself is unbiblical or not is something they have to consider as they are the ones doing these jobs, but for me I don't judge others, that's unbiblical too, that is for God to decide when he judges us. That being said, I take science with a pinch of salt as I would with anyone claiming infallibility in their beliefs, and what is also food for thought is that scientific beliefs of a couple of hundred years ago seem absurdities now, and in a few hundred years whats to say all our advances now will not be laughed at and made the butt of jokes? The Bible will stay the same. Science will not.

And spiritual books written in italics.... for a Catholic it doesn't seem like you're convinced by the Bible at all. Although in experience I know of a lot of Catholics who seem very underwhelmed by their own holy book, prefering human tradition over it... but that sounds an awful like the Catholicism thread in the Sanctuary and I feel I've reitarated that enough.
And please, what is this hard dome you speak of? And flat earth? Please give me some citations, for I have not a clue where this is pulled out from.

 

I had a nice reply written, then it disappeared, so I will try to recreate it.

I am sorry for lumping you in with those who say scientists are tools of the evil one, but i find it offensive when Christians who have no scientific training when they say that the findings are wrong and back it up with other findings by equally untrained "experts" like Duane Gish and Henry Morris (not biologists who say biology is wrong).

Religion and scripture have also been used for evil by the way, and not only by Catholics. i think you'd agree (and OWB I am not trying to start anything with you) that blood transfusions are a good benefit of science, but certain groups of Watchtower people make martyrs out of children who deny the life saving treatment. I would say this is an evil act encouraging children to suffer and die needlessly. If you do want to get into it (I think for the second time, OWB please PM me). Scripture has also been used to rationalize abusive polygamy.

Although not all scientists are free to admit mistakes, they do exist and the growth of scientific knowledge shows that advances to change theories (plate tectonics has only been around since the 60's and was laughed at at first).

Also, while the Bible stays the same, interpretation does not. Why are they thousands upon thousands of denominations with a family of Protestant communities. Calvinist communities have been divided, Lutheran communities have been divided and the Anabaptists are the worst with countless groups springing out from the tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”

Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”

While the last two do not indicate a flat earth, it indicates a stationary earth, that modern astronomy contradicts. Does this mean Scripture teaches error, or did people interpret it wrong in the past?

As for my views of scripture, I hold it incredibly dear to my heart. The difference lies in hermeneutics and that i do believe my clergy is trained to accept and examine critical analytical study of scripture instead of accepting traditional ideas of scripture (for example, the gospels are not written by the people we say wrote them. In fact they are anonymous. But does that make them false, no they are still True. They also contain little historical fact as we understand it today, but i do not deny the existence of Jesus Christ, his death on a cross and his Resurrection). Most devout Catholics I know also hold the Scriptures dear. My wife even carried a Bible at our wedding instead of a simple bouquet.

Tradition illuminates the interpretation of Scripture.

 

Alright put'em up! :boxing_smiley:

 

I too found an article about Firmament and the word "raqiya`"

Concerning the second creative period, or “day,” Genesis 1:6-8 states: “And God went on to say: ‘Let an expanse [Heb., ra·qi′a‛] come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.” Later the record speaks of luminaries appearing in “the expanse of the heavens,” and still later of flying creatures flying over the earth “upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”—Ge 1:14, 15, 17, 20.

The Greek Septuagint used the word ste·re′o·ma (meaning “a firm and solid structure”) to translate the Hebrew ra·qi′a‛, and the Latin Vulgate used the Latin term firmamentum, which also conveys the idea of something solid and firm. The King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and many others follow suit in translating ra·qi′a‛ by the word “firmament.” However, in its marginal reading the King James Version gives the alternate reading “expansion,” and the American Standard Version gives “expanse” in its footnote. Other translations support such rendering—“expanse” (Ro; Fn; Yg; An; NW); “expansión” (VM [Spanish]); “étendue [extent or expanse]” (Segond; Ostervald [French]).

Some endeavor to show that the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe included the idea of a solid vault arched over the earth, with sluice holes through which rain could enter and with the stars fixed within this solid vault, diagrams of such concept appearing in Bible dictionaries and some Bible translations. Commenting on this attitude, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].”—Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.

While it is true that the root word (ra·qa‛′) from which ra·qi′a‛ is drawn is regularly used in the sense of “beating out” something solid, whether by hand, by foot, or by any instrument (compare Ex 39:3; Eze 6:11), in some cases it is not sound reasoning to rule out a figurative use of the word. Thus at Job 37:18 Elihu asks concerning God: “With him can you beat out [tar·qi′a‛] the skies hard like a molten mirror?” That the literal beating out of some solid celestial vault is not meant can be seen from the fact that the word “skies” here comes from a word (sha′chaq) also rendered “film of dust” or “clouds” (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror whose burnished face gives off a bright reflection.—Compare Da 12:3.

So, too, with the “expanse” produced on the second creative “day,” no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather, the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor. This also accords with scientific reasoning on the early stages of the planet’s formation and the view that at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface at that point.

That the Hebrew writers of the Bible did not conceive of the sky as originally formed of burnished metal is evident from the warning given through Moses to Israel that, in the event of their disobedience to God, “Your skies that are over your head must also become copper, and the earth that is beneath you iron,” thus metaphorically describing the effects of intense heat and severe drought upon the skies and land of Israel.—De 28:23, 24.

Similarly, it is obvious that the ancient Hebrews held no pagan concept as to the existence of literal “windows” in the arch of the sky through which earth’s rain descended. Very accurately and scientifically the writer of Job quotes Elihu in describing the process by which rain clouds are formed when he states, at Job 36:27, 28: “For he draws up the drops of water; they filter as rain for his mist, so that the clouds [shecha·qim′] trickle, they drip upon mankind abundantly.” Likewise, the expression “floodgates [’arub·both′] of the heavens” clearly manifests a figurative expression.—Compare Ge 7:11; 2Ki 7:1, 2, 19; Mal 3:10; see also Pr 3:20; Isa 5:6; 45:8; Jer 10:13.

In his vision of heavenly arrangements, Ezekiel describes “the likeness of an expanse like the sparkle of awesome ice” over the heads of the four living creatures. The account is filled with figurative expressions.—Eze 1:22-26; 10:1.

Though the formation of the expanse, or atmosphere, surrounding earth did not involve a ‘beating out’ of something as solid as some metallic substance, yet it should be remembered that the gaseous mixture forming earth’s atmosphere is just as real as land and water and has weight in itself (in addition to carrying water and innumerable particles of solid materials, such as dust). The weight of all the air surrounding earth is estimated at more than 5,200,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 1, p. 156) Air pressure at sea level runs about 1 kg per sq cm (15 lb per sq in.). It also exercises resistance so that most meteors hitting the immense jacket of air surrounding the earth are burned up by the friction created by the atmosphere. Thus the force implied in the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛ is certainly in harmony with the known facts.

In the Psalms “the expanse,” along with “the heavens,” is said to tell of God’s works and praise.—Ps 19:1.

 

Thank you for your response. I don't how your original sounded but I thought that was well written!
I agree with you 1000% that scripture will stay the same, but interpretation will change. That's a very good, and very interesting point you've made there, and dare I repeat my phrase...food for thought.
But half of that in in the fallibility of man and also the idiocy of man in general, that one has to twist round phrases of a holy text to give himself reassurance that he's not really sinning after all... I find that rather cowardly too. At least if you are to sin, accept it as a sin and seek forgiveness than to cover it up and twist words round to make it seem like you are in the right. I know that isn't the entire misuse of biblical scripture but for me that's a pretty darn annoying aspect of it.
Yes, I also agree with blood transfusions, especially when a child is forced out of one by parental figures for religious reasons. If it was a fully grown adult, you could say, fair enough. That's her prerogative and she's made her mind up for it without anyone forcing a decision upon her. But with a child it is not right.

As for the scripture from Psalms, I admit I had to make some personal research into these phrases. I personally don't think that is a literal phrase, but a symbolic phrase. Reading the entirely of Psalm 93 which is a description of the Lord, it sounds like a continuation of that effect, that the strength in the Lord means that it cannot be moved and nothing can weaken it. It seems any mention that it is indication a stationary Earth are taken out of context. Please, correct me on this if I am wrong but I take a different stance on that phrase in terms of it's interpretation.

 

The word used in both these Scripture is מוֹט ;mowt, mote, a primitive root; to waver; by implication , to slip, shake, fall:--be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip. Which does not seem to mean that the Earth is "stationary" but that it is permanent or that it will not be put off course or destroyed.

 

Ah now that is interesting. That actually backed up my initial thoughts upon seeing the text and my opinion after reading the entirety of the Psalm. Thanks for the info on the Hebew.

 

I don't agree with most of what you've said, but I want to express my appreciation for the sincere, non-bellicose way you say it, which is truly Christian and a refreshing change from many of the debates on this subject, on these forums and elsewhere.

 

Since we're getting a little far afield from the topic of evolution, I'll try to make this brief.

There is no good way to prove that Blood Transfusions are life saving or not.

If someone is given a transfusion and lives, how do we know that person would not have lived anyway?

If a person refuses a transfusion and dies how do we know that the person would have lived if that person had gotten a transfusion?

We do know that what was originally thought the highest amount of blood loss that a person can have has been repeatedly changed as people continually survive higher amounts of blood loss than previously thought possible.

Also many are finding out that people recover quicker from surgery and heal faster, if they do not have a transfusion.

Also one does not have to worry about autoimmune problems or the possible chances of getting several very nasty diseases through transfusion.

PS. If you feel you must discuss this we can start a new thread for it.

 

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for teaching me a new word (bellicose)! We all learn something new every day!
I don't like starting quarrels. I love debates, and I love getting into people's minds and seeing why they think a certain way, but lowing oneself to personal attacks on other's opinions is in my opinion, the sign of a weak debater, as they can't defend what they have to say for themselves so they attack other's beliefs instead. I always hated having an intellectual debate just for someone to make it an argument instead. I just love learning what makes people tick and why they believe the things they do.

I've got something to add for the Sciences discussion too actually, which I just thought of actually. I haven't mentioned this before in these forums but I am hugely interested with psychology, psychiatry and neurology (really just the entire function of the brain physically and emotionally!!), so for that reason alone I cannot be entirely against science, for I have a huge love for certain areas of it!

 

That's a thought, shall we create a thread? I might just do that. Would the Politics board suffice or would there be a more appropriate place?
Actually I'll put it on the Christianity forums I think For some interesting opinions.

 

Sounds like a plan, see you there.

 

This is more of an observation than a belief. Eastern religions tend towards intense pragmatism and practicality. Few practitioners spend significant time focusing on issues that are not directly tied to the here and now. I have several Zen books on my shelf that make no mention of reincarnation cycles. I challenge you to find a christian book that does not use the words faith and belief at least a hundred times. The difference in emphasis between Eastern and Western religions is like night and day.

Of course, the phrase "Eastern religion" encompasses thousands of sects and hundreds of millions of people. Within a population that large, you will find examples of every conceivable practice, belief, and eccentricity. This has mostly to do with cultural baggage. It has nothing to do with educated individuals accepting scientific facts.

I suppose there is one belief that you could legitimately claim to be a foundational principle of Buddhism. That would be the belief that there could possibly be people from the past and present who have greater understanding and enlightenment than you do. That would be hard for most of us to argue against.

 

Then you should say Zen. I know Buddhism covers a large spectrum of beliefs. I know "Eastern Religions" covers a large spectrum of belief. but so does "Western Religions".

My point is that metaphysical statements that have impact on our understanding of the universe come from all religions and just because some have "facts" in their holy books as you say does not mean they are more antithetical to science, it is just that some are more outspoken than others.

Without getting into a philosophical and doctrinal debate on Buddhism, I would say that the existence of suffering is their foundational belief (which is undeniable), but what that suffering means for humans is where you get into metaphysical beliefs and unprovable statements.

Also, practitioners of Eastern religions may focus on the here and now, but their actions may have eternal consequences in their own belief system.

 

Ever wonder why humans have very little hair and relatively large sweat glands compared to other species? It turns out we have a distinct advantage when it comes to running down prey in heat. Give a marathon runner a small spear and throw him out into the grasslands of Africa and chances are he'll have dinner in a few hours. The bushman of southern Africa have a 90% kill rate using this same technique today. Combine that with other physical features such a large buttock, small toes, long tendons and it's easy to see humans were made for running. Just something I've been thinking about lately.

 

So we can run down to the store.

 

If there is a Zen position on the origin of the universe or human life, I have never been able to find it. I just don't see a confict with science there at all.

 

I hafta say though. For the oldest religions in the world, they are gradually changing.

I-Kuan Tao is a legitimate religion coming out of Taiwan which incorporate Tao, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism and (believe it or not) Christianity.

While, TO ME, it's warped. But on the positive side, it's an exiting move in the right direction.


-

 

I don't know about you? - but, I didn't come from no monkey.

fuck that.

 

Imagine how much this would cost at a store and it's all in a days run.