Scientists meet to tackle religion

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Igottago

So you have no concept of right or wrong? I don't prescribe to religion either, but I certainly do make judgements on what I consider to be right or wrong behaviour. You don't judge people? You don't care what people do, how they do it, the consequences of those actions?

What odd questions. How did you come up with that?

I don't buy this "sin" business. It doesn't mean I don't know what's right and wrong.

Of course I judge people. I'm not a hypocrite about it though. I don't claim to follow an old book that tells me not to do it and then do it anyway.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Interesting article from the NJ Ledger

absolutely wow...and once again I harken to the fact that our children should be left alone until they are of the age of consent. This guy should have his arse fired. What is a Pastor doing teaching in a "Public School"?

Paszkiewicz didn't limit his religious observations to personal salvation, according to the tapes.
Paszkiewicz shot down the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang" in favor of creationism. He also told his class that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark, LaClair said.

[skins]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Of course I judge people. I'm not a hypocrite about it though. I don't claim to follow an old book that tells me not to do it and then do it anyway.

yes, Christians aren't supposed to judge people. they're not supposed to do other things to, but that doesn't mean that they will. people aren't perfect, and just because they subscribe to a certain belief, does not mean that they will follow it 100%. that doesn't make them hypocritical, it makes them human.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by skins

yes, Christians aren't supposed to judge people. they're not supposed to do other things to, but that doesn't mean that they will. people aren't perfect, and just because they subscribe to a certain belief, does not mean that they will follow it 100%. that doesn't make them hypocritical, it makes them human.

It was a response to a specific poster originally and his comments about a knocked-up single woman automatically being a whore.

I know people aren't perfect. I know religious people aren't perfect. I just think it's hypocritical to call someone a nasty name (ie whore) and also claim some bogus moral superiority even though it clearly goes against "the rules" to do so.

[skins]

yes, but I was responding to this part:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Don't ask me to explain the hypocrisy of religious people.

I think you are probably more qualified than I am to explain how religious people tend to forget certain parts of the religion they allegedly ascribe to when it's convenient.

Clearly you are "judging" other people when you call them whores. I thought you folks weren't supposed to judge?

not the part about calling someone a whore. someone being a hypocrite and someone faltering in their religious belief or making a mistake are two very different things. Although it's true that some Christians are hypocrites.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by skins

not the part about calling someone a whore. someone being a hypocrite and someone faltering in their religious belief or making a mistake are two very different things. Although it's true that some Christians are hypocrites.

Fair enough. I'll limit the hypocrite label to those good people who take it upon themselves to bluster about their own moral superiority and general churchiness while condemning others for not being quite so pious.

[skins]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough. I'll limit the hypocrite label to those good people who take it upon themselves to bluster about their own moral superiority and general churchiness while condemning others for not being quite so pious.

sounds fair to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It was a response to a specific poster originally and his comments about a knocked-up single woman automatically being a whore.

I know people aren't perfect. I know religious people aren't perfect. I just think it's hypocritical to call someone a nasty name (ie whore) and also claim some bogus moral superiority even though it clearly goes against "the rules" to do so.

Maybe you should go back and reread your post...hell..I'll do it for you.

I think you are probably more qualified than I am to explain how religious people tend to forget certain parts of the religion they allegedly ascribe to when it's convenient.

Stereotype much? Or just ignorant?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Stereotype much? Or just ignorant?

Both.

Am I wrong?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Both.

Am I wrong?

You're not exactly wrong either.

Some religious people are hypocritical...but that doesn't mean that they're all the way. Reading your post..it seems like you classify ALL religious people as hypocrits.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're not exactly wrong either.

Some religious people are hypocritical...but that doesn't mean that they're all the way. Reading your post..it seems like you classify ALL religious people as hypocrits.

"If the blind lead the blind, they both will fall into a ditch."

[Cheese]

Natural Phenomenon and the Explanations Provided by the Church and Science

Earth's Geometry

There is a long history of the Church's most famous scientific blunder of stating that the Earth is flat. The Bible too promotes the flat earth theory. In Isaiah [11:12], Ezekiel [7:2] it states that the Earth has four corners. In Revelation [7:1], four angels were "standing on the four corners of the earth". In Daniel [4:10-11, 20], it refers to seeing to the end of the Earth and then seeing all kingdoms of the world in Matthew [4:8] and Luke [4:5] (implying a flat, rather than spherical Earth). Some early Church Fathers promoted a flat earth such as Lactantius (325 A.D.) who said, "About the antipodes also one can neither hear nor speak without laughter. It is asserted as something serious that we should believe that there are men who have their feet opposite to ours... Or is there anyone so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads?"

Origin of Species



According to the Bible, God created everything on Earth: man, woman, trees, plants, beasts, fowl, etc. When God created humans, they were in their current form. Genesis [2:7] states, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Then, later in [2:22], God created a woman, "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."



Rain & Drought

Gods produce rain or drought. Religions since the beginning of recorded history have credited Gods with producing rain. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Incas, Mayans, Greeks and so on have prayed or danced and were rewarded by rain. They've prayed for rain when the crops were dying. They've also asked that the rain stop when crops and people were drowning.
The Bible states that, "Elias ... prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months" James [5:17]. Then, in [5:17], "He prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, ... "


Communication and Language

The Bible states in Genesis [11:1] that "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.". Later in [11:6], "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language...". The Lord was angry that these people were building a tower to reach the heavens, so the Lord said, "... let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So, "the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Genesis [11:9].


Races



According to the Bible, no humans survived the great flood in Noah's time, except those on the ark. In Genesis [7:13], it states specifically that these were "Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons". Therefore, every human on Earth today are decedents of this small, related group of 8 people.



Species of Earth



The Bible contains references to some very interesting sounding species that are unknown to biologists. There are "creepy crawly things", and "fiery serpents" Numbers [21:6], a talking serpent Genesis [3:1], serpents forced to forever travel on their belly and eat dust Genesis [3:14], giants Genesis [6:4], and "flying creeping things which have four feet" Leviticus [11:23].



When people went searching for the children of Israel, they found giants. Numbers [13:32-33], recounts an "evil report" where the land was all eaten up by its inhabitants, "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."






These are the exact quotes and ideas epoused in the Bible as it relates to science and the church. These are just a few of the many "facts?".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

"If the blind lead the blind, they both will fall into a ditch."

So you think religious people are blind?

I realize thats your opinion...but come on Cheese...your belief in humanity is just that...your belief.

I could spin either way.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you think religious people are blind?

I realize thats your opinion...but come on Cheese...your belief in humanity is just that...your belief.

I could spin either way.

actually that quote is supposedly by...Jesus. Not my saying.

But feel free to spin away...Im good for a discussion after my meeting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...These are the exact quotes and ideas epoused in the Bible as it relates to science and the church. These are just a few of the many "facts?".

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make, Cheese. What the Bible says and how the Church uses Scripture are two very different things completely. It should be noted that when the writings of Scripture were composed, they were based on contemporary ideas of the world and the universe, and would have appeared perfectly reasonable if not completely obvious to anyone from antiquity. Obviously, Christians and the Church have struggled with the invention and progression of science, but millions of Christians have managed to adapt their faith to meet the challenges of modernity (part of what I feel exacerbated the problem), and are now in the process of finding their place in a post-modern world. Some more successfully than others, but please do not paint us all with the same brush.
You do not have to be a biblical literalist to be deeply religious. The entire concept of "divine inspiration" has been totally misunderstood and misapplied in the course of the last two or three hundred years, and this is to blame for much of what aggravates you about religion. So what if the Bible is "unscientific". So was Miamonedes. So was Plato. It doesn't mean that what was said thousands of years ago is now completely meaningless and without function.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make, Cheese. What the Bible says and how the Church uses Scripture are two very different things completely. It should be noted that when the writings of Scripture were composed, they were based on contemporary ideas of the world and the universe, and would have appeared perfectly reasonable if not completely obvious to anyone from antiquity. Obviously, Christians and the Church have struggled with the invention and progression of science, but millions of Christians have managed to adapt their faith to meet the challenges of modernity (part of what I feel exacerbated the problem), and are now in the process of finding their place in a post-modern world. Some more successfully than others, but please do not paint us all with the same brush.
You do not have to be a biblical literalist to be deeply religious. The entire concept of "divine inspiration" has been totally misunderstood and misapplied in the course of the last two or three hundred years, and this is to blame for much of what aggravates you about religion. So what if the Bible is "unscientific". So was Miamonedes. So was Plato. It doesn't mean that what was said thousands of years ago is now completely meaningless and without function.

Actually Textcritic I was playing the "Devils Advocate" LOLOL.

You know if all Christians or theists were like you I would take my music sheet somewhere else and play a different tune.
You are MUCH like my best friend, the Pastor...unfortunately you know as well as anyone that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. You understand that what I quoted was rhetoric based on ancient civilization and the "life standards" of that time. You are also educated about the realities of said scriptures and the fallacies they contain.
In most cases, although we are polar opposites in our spiritual lives, we are very similar in beliefs.
If Christianity could follow in your shoes the world would be a better place. Unfortunately intelligence and dogma dont appear on the same page in the Americas these days....hence the need to prod the fundies with my spear!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...Unfortunately intelligence and dogma dont appear on the same page in the Americas these days....hence the need to prod the fundies with my spear!

So true.
Speaking of Fundamentalists: I was asked by my Church this past week to participate on a panel discussion to address the question: "Is the Bible the Word of God, or does it merely contain the Word of God?" I attend a big church, and really am not intimately acquainted with even the broad consesnus opinion in my own congragation on such a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. It scared the hell out of me at first, but I learned a very important thing about the right way to understand an old and over-used Christian mantra: "divine inspiration". In so many segments of Christiandom, the words of Paul to his protogé Timothy are grossly misconstrued, where he declares that all the Scriptures (he never bothers to define the parametres of "the Scriptures", but seems to think that Timothy would know to which pieces of literature he is referring) are "God breathed, and useful for teaching, for rebuking error, for correcting faults, and for instruction in the matters of justice. So that every man of God might be prepared for performing to it's completion every good work" (2Tim 3:16–17, my translation). too many Christians seem to think that "God breathed" must also mean "inerrant" or "infallible". How does a reasonable person arrive at such a conclusion based on this affirmation of the function of scripture by the Apostle Paul?
In my own understanding ( which I believe is much closer to Paul's idea) the correct interpretation of "God-breathed" means something much closer to "alive." In Gen 2:7 it says that God "breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, and the man became a living being." Within a perfectly functional allegorical and practical perception of Scripture, the message, I believe is quite clear: The Scriptures when used properly have the power to effect positive change; they are useful because they are imbued with the essence of God; when functioning as a vehicle for the performance of justice and good works, the Scriptures are alive with the character of God.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Paszkiewicz didn't limit his religious observations to personal salvation, according to the tapes.
Paszkiewicz shot down the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang" in favor of creationism. He also told his class that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark, LaClair said.

I just saw this. How big was this ark?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Unfortunately intelligence and dogma dont appear on the same page in the Americas these days....hence the need to prod the fundies with my spear!

Intelligence and the balance of humanity don't seem to be on the same page these days... you're going to get a TON of ignorant people from every religious/spiritual group (athiests included). its just sometimes easier to pick out and pick on the ignorant christians in north america these days

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I just saw this. How big was this ark?

I've wondered about this quite a bit. A quick search came up with this:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html

That's the most specific one I've come across. Another website compared it graphically with a 747.

There are plenty of interesting explanations about the "logistics" of how the ark worked if you are willing to poke around a bit.

Some of the more creative ideas I've seen to explain how this incredible story could have actually happened in reality are

- the dinosaurs were baby dinosaurs
- the bigger animals like elephants were babies as well
- animals changed over time (I don't think the word evolved was used) so for example take birds. There are approximately 23 thousand species(?) of birds in the world today -- it'd be pretty hard to house 46 thousand birds* -- so there were just several "kinds" of birds then, and they changed into all the weird and wonderful kinds we have today. Like they wouldn't have brought along magpies, crows and ravens, they would only take one species because they are so similar
*that number could be as high as 300 thousand birds because I think any animal that was considered "clean" they brought along 7 of them, not 2, but I don't know if birds are clean or not
- there were a lot of people on the boat, not just Noah like some people believe. His whole family was there, so they would have helped look after the animals

I've never seen a very good explanation about how they got all that food in there.

This is just a random sampling of things I've run across on the internet. I don't have any expertise in the matter.