P
Peter_John
Guest
“As the Sun sinks slowly in the West, burning everything …” Comes from an old comedy routine I could not track down.
- Status
“As the Sun sinks slowly in the West, burning everything …” Comes from an old comedy routine I could not track down.
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! Wow, that was exceptionally gratuitously supercilious!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Peter John, is it “Aloha-oe, aloha-oe, ikeona ona noho ikanipo”? (“As the sun pulls away from the shore, and our boat sinks slowly in the west, we approach the island of Lu-Lu”)
“As the Sun sinks slowly in the West, burning everything …” Comes from an old comedy routine I could not track down.
P
Peter_John
Guest
No. I heard Ted Knight (known for the Mary Tyler Moore Show) performing it on one of those pre-Donahue, pre-Oprah daytime '70s talk shows (like the Mike Douglas Show). It was like a mock of a newscast.
Though thanks for the translation, never knew what those words meant. Now I have to watch my daily dose of the original Hawaii Five-O on Netflix.
E
Eloh
Guest
Religions traditionally dislike science because it makes people question their faith.
B
Betterave
Guest
Scientists traditionally dislike religion insofar as it makes them question the point of what they’re doing. 
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, let’s see. That’s not true of Protestant Christianity, nor of Roman Catholic Christianity, nor of Judaism. It’s not true of Islam in many circumstances, nor is it true of Hinduism or Buddhism. Orthodox Christianity has not been at the forefront of scientific investigation, but that has more to do with culture than with religious commitments. Some believers indigenous religions have questioned the agenda of science, but not all.
D
donsnow
Guest
Good morning, all,
I think that this thread has successfully shown that the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not reject science.
Good loves all of you,
Don
I think that this thread has successfully shown that the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not reject science.
Good loves all of you,
Don
L
Luke1983
Guest
Its an infantile behavior from their part. They are mostly fanatics protestant at large who react to an action - science disproving literal genesis creationism.
From every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Science goes against pretty much everything in the Genesis. Which now isn’t considered literally anymore. The reaction to what is seen as an attack to their faith (not much in them to begin with) is defence of literal biblical creationism and hence fanaticism. Which just goes against the Faith really. It does wonders for atheists. “look at them they’re fanatical freaks, religious obscurantism at its zenith, who think the earth is 6000 years old. Don’t believe anything else they say!” Kind of argument. Its a no contest knockout punch! And will continue to be unless people become less fanatic. Not just that but the whole Galileo story is a big plus for them too. He was right and got bashed by the Church who says of itself to be the sole depositary of All Truth! That’s why Catholicism is the “enemy” if someone says he holds the truth and then boycotts someone like Galileo who is definitely right then what? Loss of credibility forever. That’s why the scandals for pedophile priests are more of a scandal to people than some rabbis being pedophiles for example! Why? Because the Church preaches that it holds The Truth! Rabbis preach to jews full stop. Its unfortunately something the Church will always suffer from-the Galileo trial. And never fully recover its credibility even after public apologies. Where was the Holy Spirit back then taking a nap?! From that day on in the eyes of the people it was anti-science and anti truth because Galileo was right! Its a bloody mess! That’s why apparitions have multiplied in the last couple of centuries I think. But everything could have been solved with the Holy Ghost speaking to the Pope that Galileo was indeed right and didn’t have to be put on trial in the first place! That’s what I don’t understand…why all this if it could have been avoided with a single manifestation of God at the time of Galileo’s trial?! This is the mystery of iniquity for me. It would be logically easy but isn’t!
Anyway the reaction of science haters is mostly psychological. Nothing more. A defence mechanism.
L
Luke1983
Guest
I’m still looking for proofs of jonah, and any other old testament account. Moses’ one appears to contradict history about Egyptians namely no pharaoh ever dying in the red sea…
V
Vladd
Guest
This is why I seek answers from the catholic people, other branches of Catholicism because that what they all branched from are weird , to say it nicely ! I don’t see how they think they are right and the start of Christianity the catholic church is wrong ! This is why I come here, you guys actually have scientist ! I like that! Why only recently accept science though ?
K
kbachler
Guest
Many Catholics do not accept science. They are happy to accept the results of the technology it brings, however. But, if you ask many Catholics you will hear that there was no death prior to the fall of Adam - and this means NO death of any non-vegitarian thing. This flies in the face of all scientific evidence which shows that many creatures lived - and died - before any humans existed.
So don’t be too ready to say that Catholics accept science. There is still - unfortunately - a great deal of mysticism among the people of the Catholic Church.
K
kbachler
Guest
Not at all. Most scientists realize that the endeavors have two different points.Scientists traditionally dislike religion insofar as it makes them question the point of what they’re doing.
K
kbachler
Guest
But it can come to an understanding of those orgins that it doesn’t currently have without sacrificing faith.
The origin of man in a nutshell is that he was formed from dust. Well, from a high level description - a very simplified description - WE ARE. The idea of God molding clay doesn’t preclude that said molding could be through the use of statistical natural selection.
The story of the fall is an interesting one that parallels many things in science and raises some grand questions. For example - man is different, only mankind routinely bears offspring in pain. This is due to the size of the head, which is relatively large due to brain size. Other animals don’t have this same problem. It’s interesting that it is THIS issue that causes pain, since mankind ate from the Tree of Knowledge and one of the punishments was that Eve would bear children in pain. And BTW - if nothing died prior to the fall, why was there a Tree of Life? And if the punishment of eating from the Tree of Knowledge was death (and not “coming to KNOW death” - possibly a better translation) then why not simply eat from the Tree of Life first? Or immediately thereafter? Obviously,Adam and Eve were NOT the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The Tree of Knowledge is better understood as an “eye opening experience”. Man now KNOWS that he will die and has fear of it. He KNOWS that he needs to work for food, and cannot simply count on it being available. His brain has changed, and with it, he can no longer live a life of ignorant bliss in the garden.
E
edwest2
Guest
May I point out that God has intervened in history? And one of His attributes is being able to do things man cannot do. Jesus raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, and all without technology.
On the one hand there are those that argue that the Bible should not be treated as a science book, while others are attempting to treat it as a science book.
From the Catholic Answers Library:
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
And from the Bible:
bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm
Peace,
Ed
K
kbachler
Guest
Sorry Ed. While I believe that God is COMPLETE (incuding in the mathematical/logical sense) I also believe that God is CONSISTENT (also in the mathematical logical sense) but by choice of DIVINE WILL.
It’s demonstable that complete systems are forcibly (by nature) inconsistent. Hence, a complete being can be consistent ONLY BY CHOICE.
What this means is that if we believe that God has constructed laws - and I believe He has - that He has the ability to break them. This applies BOTH to physical laws and moral laws; ANY law that He has constructed.
God chooses not to break his moral laws - in general that is agreed upon. Why do we ASSUME (without proof) that God chooses to break His physical laws? I personally don’t believe that. While I do believe that God creates extraordinary events, I do not believe that they are miracles in the sense of violating His own laws. When He makes the lame walk, or the blind see, I believe He does so through His superior understanding, knowledge, an power of His own physical laws. On some level He reforms the structure so that it now functions.
Is this far and away above what man can currently do (with technology?) Yes. But there are many things that man has learned to do with technology, or learned to understand with technology, that man could not do nor could understand in the past. I don’t have to believe in the “mystical” to explain this. I only have to admit that I understand the universe far less than God does. And per His commandments, I strive to continue to understand it, and Him.
Undertstanding the Biblical context - for examples that there are explanations of origins that are better understood scientifically but that are being given to a society that was thousands of years away from understanding something as simple as a “match” - doesn’t mean that I am treating the Bible like a science book. It simply means that the Jews in the time of Moses would have had no way of grasping concepts that weren’t developed until the past 150 years. Why would we expect God to give them an explanation for orgins in a fom they could never possibly understand?
F
Filippo_Bruno
Guest
This is fiction, as any zookeeper or dog owner could tell you.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is a common idea, but God never said to the people that there ‘were those before you. Animals that were not yet physically men, but gradually, over a great period of time, changed, and became men as you are today.’
No need to explain DNA, mutation or the rest.
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
I accidentally saw that you responded to my post. Thank you.
I agree with you that the story of the Fall is an inrteresting one; however, my perspective may be different from yours.
The 'story" of the Fall is about Adam breaking his relationship with God. Adam may have been living a life of bliss, but he was not ignorant. He knew exactly what was required in order to remain in God’s friendship. As the created, it was necessary for Adam to live in free submission to his Creator. In his original sin, Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned Him.
Regardless of how Adam’s biological anatomy came into existence, God directly created his soul. Thus Adam’s own nature (as well as ours) is an unique unification or composite of both the spiritual world and the material world.
Blessings,
granny
“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I read something recently about the distinction between “production science” (science used to build up our high technology-based materialist lifestyle) and “impact science” (how that technology is harming life on planet earth), and how many conservatives are really into “production science” but fight tooth and nail against “impact science.”*
I guess there could also be a distinction between “science that doesn’t go against anything in the Bible” (that doesn’t deal with heliocentrism or evolution, etc) and “science that does go against the world view expressed in the Bible.”
I teach mythology, and I praise how the ancients understood the world. Try erasing everything you know, stand outside and do “scientific” observations. The sun comes up in the east & sets in the west; the sun is moving & the earth is still. What else goes across the sky – birds. And the sun brings warmth and heat. The sun is a firebird (Chineese myth). Pretty good.
Now think of the world as another Bible which we can study, just like Biblical scholars study the Bible.
God is Truth, and scientific truths (changeable as they are with better evidence and theories) are to be respected, and the scientists who reveal these truths are to be respected and not harassed and smeared, just because what they have found out is unpopular or unpleasant.
I’m thinking that people who reject science – whether it be climate science or evolution – are committing a sin against God, who created the world and doesn’t wish us to lie.
As an anthropologist who teaches evolution, I used to tell my students that I knew some may be from religions that reject evolution and that they didn’t have to believe in it, only learn it for the test. I would go on to explain that I had never had any problem between science and religion, and that science had even inspired greater religious understanding and appreciation; that there was nothing science could discover that would ever shake my belief in God, but only strengthen it. I tell them how my learning about evolution blew my mind re the greatness of God, beyond imagination.
Now I tell them that I think it may be a sin against God to reject evolution; I do not want to condone something that would be harmful to their souls.
And because human lives are at stake, I think it is a much greater sin to reject climate science & our implication in causing harms and killing people through anthropogenic climate change, and not make efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction of greenhouse gases (tho if a person rejects the science, but nevertheless mitigates it as an act of prudence, that I think would be okay). However, I think it is a really much worse sin when skeptics put forth a lot of effort to dissuade others from accepting climate science and mitigating climate change. Sort of a Cain type of sin. I guess we all bear the mark of Cain.
I’m no saint re truth & also need much reform. I’m even ashamed to write this post, as if I’m somehow a completely truthful person. Please pray for me.
*“Anti-reflexivity : The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy,” Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, Theory, Culture & Society, 2010, Vol. 27(2–3): 100–133
I guess there could also be a distinction between “science that doesn’t go against anything in the Bible” (that doesn’t deal with heliocentrism or evolution, etc) and “science that does go against the world view expressed in the Bible.”
I teach mythology, and I praise how the ancients understood the world. Try erasing everything you know, stand outside and do “scientific” observations. The sun comes up in the east & sets in the west; the sun is moving & the earth is still. What else goes across the sky – birds. And the sun brings warmth and heat. The sun is a firebird (Chineese myth). Pretty good.
Now think of the world as another Bible which we can study, just like Biblical scholars study the Bible.
God is Truth, and scientific truths (changeable as they are with better evidence and theories) are to be respected, and the scientists who reveal these truths are to be respected and not harassed and smeared, just because what they have found out is unpopular or unpleasant.
I’m thinking that people who reject science – whether it be climate science or evolution – are committing a sin against God, who created the world and doesn’t wish us to lie.
As an anthropologist who teaches evolution, I used to tell my students that I knew some may be from religions that reject evolution and that they didn’t have to believe in it, only learn it for the test. I would go on to explain that I had never had any problem between science and religion, and that science had even inspired greater religious understanding and appreciation; that there was nothing science could discover that would ever shake my belief in God, but only strengthen it. I tell them how my learning about evolution blew my mind re the greatness of God, beyond imagination.
Now I tell them that I think it may be a sin against God to reject evolution; I do not want to condone something that would be harmful to their souls.
And because human lives are at stake, I think it is a much greater sin to reject climate science & our implication in causing harms and killing people through anthropogenic climate change, and not make efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction of greenhouse gases (tho if a person rejects the science, but nevertheless mitigates it as an act of prudence, that I think would be okay). However, I think it is a really much worse sin when skeptics put forth a lot of effort to dissuade others from accepting climate science and mitigating climate change. Sort of a Cain type of sin. I guess we all bear the mark of Cain.
I’m no saint re truth & also need much reform. I’m even ashamed to write this post, as if I’m somehow a completely truthful person. Please pray for me.
*“Anti-reflexivity : The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy,” Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, Theory, Culture & Society, 2010, Vol. 27(2–3): 100–133
- Status