Originally posted by LemonJello Well, feel free to construe my use of 'progress' in a common sense way within context. I don't really know why you are asking me this sort of question within the context of this discussion: you may as well just ask Freaky in what way mankind has "achieved" or "accomplished". In the opening post, Freaky mentions science, freedom, intellectual planes, reg ...[text shortened]... that with my use of 'progress'. It won't affect the points I was trying to make.
Very well, the question also goes out to Freaky.
What do we mean by "progress"? I think this vital to answer before going any further with this thread.
Originally posted by rwingett It is better for everyone to know the truth about the nature of the solar system.
Why do people focus on science when bashing it regarding truth? After all, the Bible is not a scientific text and the portions that are related to science are of no consequence to the actual text itself and why it was written.
Now as far as Christians go, what texts did Jesus refer to science? In addition, you said that if Christ were alive today he would "modify" his theology to reflect what science has taught us. However, I disagree completly. He would have provided us the same message and would not have even addressed science at all.
Originally posted by whodey Why do people focus on science when bashing it regarding truth? After all, the Bible is not a scientific text and the portions that are related to science are of no consequence to the actual text itself and why it was written.
Now as far as Christians go, what texts did Jesus refer to science? In addition, you said that if Christ were alive today he woul ...[text shortened]... He would have provided us the same message and would not have even addressed science at all.
His message would be scientifically compatible. Which means he would do away with all references to supernatural phenomena, or reduce them to metaphors at the very least. Which means Christianity would be completely altered. All this nonsense about resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, and prophecies would be shelved. If he were around today, Jesus would become a humanist philosopher and his message would center around social justice in this world.
Originally posted by rwingett His message would be scientifically compatible. Which means he would do away with all references to supernatural phenomena, or reduce them to metaphors at the very least. Which means Christianity would be completely altered. All this nonsense about resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, and prophecies would be shelved. If he were around today, Jesus would become a humanist philosopher and his message would center around social justice in this world.
Would he still speak directly to the people or would he spread his wings across the media?
Originally posted by jaywill The Bible never taught that the earth was the physical gravitational center of the universe.
Which is better for the fornicator, the thief, the adulterer to know, - that the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth?
The murderer of unborn children, which is better for him to know - that the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun?
I can't see that it matters. I'm just as inclined to fornicate or steal or for that matter murder children (no inclination at all there, just to be clear) regardless of what I think is the center of the universe. I honestly can't see how it would affect those type of decisions either way. And as a sinner, I assume I'm the sort you would be targeting by lying about the center of the universe for some sort of moral support 😕
It just doesn't matter one way or another. And you're right, the bible was not about science. But THE CHURCH PERSECUTED SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREED WITH THE "SCIENTIFIC" ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE. It doesn't matter what the bible says in the question of how Christianity has affected progress, it matters what Christians did or did not do. And the most powerful Christians of the time banned Galileo's work because it conflicted with the bible. That is clearly hindering progress, and there is no gain other than political for it. If I thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, I wouldn't be any spiritually better off, I would be just as much a heretic as I am knowing the truth. Just a more poorly informed heretic.
Originally posted by Conrau K [b] Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?
I doubt it. Early Christian theologians looked to the ideas of the Greeks, like Plato and Aristotle, to ground their doctrines in a strong philosophical base. The great Latin theologians, St Augustine and St Jerome, were also zealous devotees to the ...[text shortened]... f Western civilisation simply overlooks the substantial contribution of classical civilisation.[/b]
Most of what we call Western Civilization (at least the civilized parts) was brought into Europe's Dark Ages by the Crusaders who went to the Holy Land as Christian savages, took it from civilized Muslims, and attempted to create the best of both worlds upon their return. Since then, the leading churches of the West have attempted to interfere with nearly every positive development, then attempted to take credit for the benefits of their failure.
Originally posted by rwingett It is better for everyone to know the truth about the nature of the solar system.
===================================
It is better for everyone to know the truth about the nature of the solar system.
======================================
I don't argue with that. But the "truth" is still to come. There is plenty that we probably still do not know about the solar system.
It is arrogant for us to conclude that there is nothing more to learn and we (unlike premature science of yesterday) know the TRUTH. Relatively, perhaps. What will the scientific truth about the sun and the earth be 300 years into the future?
Anyway, my little point was that technological advancement in knowledge often has no effect on declining morals.
By the way, if the earth is not the physical center of the solar system it surely is the philosophical and spiritual center.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]===================================
It is better for everyone to know the truth about the nature of the solar system.
======================================
I don't argue with that. But the "truth" is still to come. There is plenty that we probably still do not know about the solar system.
It is arrogant for us to conclude that there i ...[text shortened]... the physical center of the solar system it surely is the philosophical and spiritual center.[/b]
Through long study we have gained much knowledge about the solar system and many other things. There is indeed much that we still do not know and much that we will probably never know. That is a realistic appraisal and an act of deep humility.
What I find to be arrogant is religious people who claim to "know" what god is, or what god wants, or whether god even exists. People who claim to "know" all the answers to things we have no way of knowing. People who claim to know the TRUTH. That is the very definition of arrogance.
Originally posted by rwingett Through long study we have gained much knowledge about the solar system and many other things. There is indeed much that we still do not know and much that we will probably never know. That is a realistic appraisal and an act of deep humility.
What I find to be arrogant is religious people who claim to "know" what god is, or what god wants, or whether g ...[text shortened]... ay of knowing. People who claim to know the TRUTH. That is the very definition of arrogance.
=============================
What I find to be arrogant is religious people who claim to "know" what god is, or what god wants, or whether god even exists. People who claim to "know" all the answers to things we have no way of knowing. People who claim to know the TRUTH. That is the very definition of arrogance.
=====================================
I don't know who claims to "know all the answers". Even the Apostle Paul did not leave us with an impression that he had no questions himself.
You are annoyed because you don't believe that God has revealed something of Himself to us in this book the Bible.
Originally posted by jaywill =============================
What I find to be arrogant is religious people who claim to "know" what god is, or what god wants, or whether god even exists. People who claim to "know" all the answers to things we have no way of knowing. People who claim to know the TRUTH. That is the very definition of arrogance.
=================================== elf to us in this book the Bible.
I know something about God because of the Bible.
If you are relying on the bible for knowledge then you truly know nothing.
Originally posted by rwingett His message would be scientifically compatible. Which means he would do away with all references to supernatural phenomena, or reduce them to metaphors at the very least. Which means Christianity would be completely altered. All this nonsense about resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, and prophecies would be shelved. If he were around today, Jesus would become a humanist philosopher and his message would center around social justice in this world.
If that were his fate, he would disappear into obscurity of a whole host of those who have done the same. What gives him appeal is what makes him unique.
Of course, I submit that although miracles cannot be studied scientifically, it does not mean that he would alter the miracles he performed. In fact, as I said earlier, he would not even address science. That is not why he came.
Originally posted by whodey If that were his fate, he would disappear into obscurity of a whole host of those who have done the same. What gives him appeal is what makes him unique.
Of course, I submit that although miracles cannot be studied scientifically, it does not mean that he would alter the miracles he performed. In fact, as I said earlier, he would not even address science. That is not why he came.
Miracles are simply not possible within a scientific understanding. Unless you want to define 'miracle' as simply meaning 'a highly unlikely event.' Again, Jesus would not address science, as that is not why he came, but he would not contradict science either. A modern day Jesus would make his message consistent with scientific understanding. That way we wouldn't have this farcical event of 'religious' people vehemently denying evolution. Jesus' revised 21st century message would be completely compatible with evolution. And he would make sure his 'followers' knew it. He would PUBLISH his own words the second time around.
Intellectually Impoverished
09 Aug '09 19:001 edit
Back to Top