Why Christianity? discussion

11 views
Major topics > Theologists and Scientists Should Align

Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Robert (last edited Jun 13, 2018 12:55PM) (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Currently, those of religious persuasion and those who like to understand natural events are in a "never the twain shall meet" situation. Scientists generally think religious practitioners are airheads for giving an unproven entity dominance over their lives. The theologically inclined think scientist's "prove it" mentality ungrateful toward the ultimate Creator. But, we have a common enemy, the CULTURE, and should unite. Both camps find modern music, TV, films, and general noir inane and repulsive. We both have our heads in our respective clouds too far to be bothered by the heedless machinations of the nonbelieving masses. It never occurs to either camp that the Natural Law (God's Law) is split into a behavioral factor championed by the religious and a technical sector pursued by scientists. In reality, we could, if we jettisoned are biases, become 2 sides to the same coin. Address your slings and arrows - luckily I can duck pretty quickly!


message 2: by David (new)

David Pulliam | 42 comments Agreed, I think.....


message 3: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments David - I guess that beats slings and arrows! Am I unclear in my postulation or this not a topic anyone but one weirdo who has a foot in both camps thinks about?


message 4: by David (new)

David Pulliam | 42 comments No, you're not clear and let me give 2 examples.
1. "religious persuasion" - that could mean Christians but also any other religion.
2. Who are "Those who like to understand natural events are in a 'never the twain shall meet' situation.'" - I don't know who that is, scientists? Well certainly there are plenty of scientists who do not think that at all, so a specific group of scientists, who?


message 5: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
There's nothing natural about creation and existence--- or consciousness.


message 6: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
But we must do natural science to the best of our ability.
But allow for more...


message 7: by John (last edited Jun 14, 2018 10:46AM) (new)

John McCann | 11 comments Henry Morris and his group are scientists and Christian theologians that teach the natural world in a scientific manner. And they identify the inferences and false evidence that secular scientists assume as truth. Basically, secular scientists do the best they can with evolution and large time frames to satisfy their natural conscience. However, they deny God and the trauma Noah's flood made on the natural world. I do not trust secular scientists.


message 8: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments John - I don't trust secular scientists either; neither do I trust religious fanatics. The "truth" is some balance between the two extremes, but neither camp wants to cede that.


message 9: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
The worldwide flood is my favorite argument. Every planet seems to get water and global floods except our watery orb... says secular scientists.


message 10: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - with your belief in an earth only 6000 years old, the worldwide flood must have occurred about yesterday. My the earth repopulated fast! It's a miracle!


message 11: by John (new)

John McCann | 11 comments Robert wrote: "
The "truth" is some balance between the two extremes, but neither camp wants to cede that."

If you were King Solomon, you would have split the baby. Light does not agree with darkness; neither can Christianity agree with secular world views. Both Christians and Secular scientists agree about absolute science, such as carbon dating. But the scientists that are Christian only trust it's accuracy to hundreds of years, not millions. I would suggest you look at one of Henry Morris's books. I feel very comfortable with my studies on this subject.




message 12: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
6000 years ago is s long freakin time. That's a lot of nasty winters and scorching summers... not to mention tornadoes hurricanes sand-storms earthquakes meteors plagues and dead fish.

It's easy for any lazy scientists to simply add a billion years to a failing experiment and claim Truth. Every lemming jumps on board.

Real science is Repeatable, predictable, observable, testable. We're swimming in pseudoscience and forensics.
Thankfully we have rare scientists who defy the masses. Of course: funding is then limited. And business runs science.


message 13: by John (new)

John McCann | 11 comments Rod wrote: "It's easy for any lazy scientists to simply add a billion years to a failing experiment and claim Truth.."

When large amounts of time and/or space are considered by the human brain, the brain goes into a neutral state where all sort of lies can be believed. This is one of the many flaws with the human brain. It is called psychochronospacitis. Secular scientists gleefully exploit this.


message 14: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Yep Rod, it is a while given the temporary status of we mortals. It's just about long enough for the Colorado River to have forged a canyon about 30 feet deep. Not quite the magnificent spectacle we flock to see!


message 15: by John (last edited Jun 18, 2018 01:27PM) (new)

John McCann | 11 comments Robert, This is uniformitarianism which "again" denies the traumatic and catastrophic global flood that cut the Grand Canyon in seconds.

The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications


message 16: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Slow erosion is a secularists exotic dream. Fast erosion is brutal Real news. God has His news in the flood. Secularists Must eradicate this flood business---- long ages is all they can come up with. The magic of time.

Again, 6000 years is a very long time. 4000 is beyond our comprehension-- add 2000 more and a universal creation, then a globe altering flood... that makes perfect reality of what I see when I drive around this planet.


message 17: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments John - yes, of course it did. Every geologist really realizes that - we're just in denial. The Colorado has nothing to do with snowfall runoff, it's because of a flood that picked that spot to cut a deep canyon. Keep that blind faith coming and you'll never discover any of the Laws of Physics.


message 18: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - slow erosion is visible every day. Evidence of a worldwide flood is not.


message 19: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
The funny thing about slow erosion- is the results.

Billions of years? We should have worked our way into the middle of the planet by now. But no.

Are mountains eroding? Most are still pretty pointy.


message 20: by John (new)

John McCann | 11 comments These geochronological clocks on the earth and in the universe have a limited observable fact record. To come up with millions of years is to venture into blind assumptions. Yet when you see those expensive buildings of colleges/research/etc. and intelligent secular scientists you conclude: "They must be right." Then them there poor ignorance folks carrying that Bible. Yet somehow this gives God pleasure in this fallen world. The proud are blind and the poor see.


message 21: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
In denial? Nah, just rebellion.

Although, you probably aren't busy fighting Biblical geologists and scientists--- I bet they are easily being ignored.

A real expert would be passionate about deeply exploring both camps. (The Christian geologists indeed have. They can't get a degree without it).


message 22: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments John - you are debating with the wrong scientist. I'm skeptical by nature and believe science like religion is based on expedience rather than fact until proven otherwise. Science has a much higher standard for its proof, but some disciplines meet it. Among them are molecular genetics, chemistry, and some physics. Theology is in the eye of the beholder. If you pray and good results ensue, then you are apt to Believe. I'm not going to argue with this, but probability wise, this method grades out even lower than sociology or ecology (bottom of the science barrel). Nevertheless, I Believe based on observation, experience, and new scientific findings. You might someday be amazed that the field you think is your enemy may soon be at the forefront in the assertion of a higher intelligence.


message 23: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 98 comments Rod wrote: "Although, you probably aren't busy fighting Biblical geologists and scientists--- I bet they are easily being ignored."

I happen to have a very good friend who is a sincere, Bible believing Christian, and a geologist.

He's also smart enough, and Biblical literate enough, not to throw the OT out, like our pal Robert here. He knows there's no true conflict between science and the Bible.


message 24: by Cherie (new)

Cherie | 18 comments The heavens declare the wonder of God. I think that’s why any truly, open minded professional in the scientific field, finds it impossible to deny the existence of a god. Whether they can search and find the true God is up for debate.

I for one have never disparaged scientists! The study of Gods world is an incredible thing! However I’m a bit more interested in seeing how much I can get out of the world in a practical sense, then just trying to understand any one part of it in great detail. (that’s my creative/entrepreneurial spirit I’m afraid)


message 25: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Ladies - to me, almost all recent scientific discoveries in the HARD sciences; physics, chemistry, genetics, microbiology point toward a creator. Religion and philosophy try to zero in on the nature of that creator with thousands of different takes. One's Belief may have some denomination as it's backbone, but we are all individuals so our most cherished interactions with whomever is our deity should indicate that individuality unless we have completely given over to groupthink. Though I may disagree with some of your theological assertions, I salute your search for the "one true God" which separates you from the mob.


back to top