Churches rejecting science altogether

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachler,

I see where you’re at and I understand where you’re at.

Now, I’m going to give your post the benefit of the doubt. I’m going to accept that you really are that naive about elitists, progressives and internationalists hi-jacking our educational system and government.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with science.

The crux is this, and I can only go by the words you write to me, in response to my post.
Each type of education, whether college, street, self-educated or vocational and any other type of education you can think of, have value. Every type of education has value.
There are no uninformed voters.

There are a MASSIVE NUMBER of uninformed voters. This is easily demonstrated and simultaneously shows that you are contradicting yourself - for you see it would be impossible (as you claim) for “elitists, progressives and internationalists” to be “hi-jacking our educational system and government” UNLESS there were a massive number of uniformed voters - because if the voters were so informed, they would simply vote and prevent such hijacking.

Consequently, your entire argument is demonstrated to be hogwash.

Consider simple things: what sells newspapers/news in general? Is it well-defined, informative stories on real issues (like how many people are killed by smoking each year?) or is it sensationalist articles on the latest hijacking? If the voters were informed, the focus would be on REAL ISSUES, and not faux issues. If the voters were informed, EARMARKS would not have a big space in news about the Federal budget, but entitlements would be the major issue.

Every voter has the information which they choose to take to the voting booth. And, not you, not me, nor anybody else is the judge of what information a citizen brings to the voting booth. Period.

Of COURSE we can judge, should judge, and DO judge. Consider the extreme case - suppose voters decided to vote based on horoscopes. Is this something we should encourage or discourage?

To paraphrase Mother Teresa, If you’re busy judging people, how can you love them them? And our God commands us to love Him and each other.

IF WE LOVE THEM, and DON’T judge them, then WE won’t have a basis on which to help them make better informed decisions.

THERE IS a difference in the quality of information.

And if people trusted God to work His will through every kind of voter, there would be a lot less squawking, griping and complaining. On my part, as well.

You just contradicted yourself - because the above is not possible without judging.

And, our nation had a much healthier atmosphere, union and solidarity when people respected the variety that made America, instead of tolerating diversity.

This nation still has professed Christians in government. And, it’s every Christian’s duty to admonish, exhort and encourage each other in the Gospel truth and faith. So, we can disagree with those who govern us…this is NOT Europe where people got in the habit of being told what’s good for them century after century by first Monarchical and now by Socialist forms of government. Rather, this IS America, where any type of education and all kinds of information goes into elections.

Again, contradicting yourself.

People are told by science types, you need to be scientific; by law enforcement, you need to know how we think; by Economists, don’t talk about the economy unless you have read these certain books; told by so and so we need such and such from all around us.
No.
We don’t.

Right. You can choose to be foolish. Does that make it a good choice?

We need to go with what we got, because the time is now. That’s what made this nation great.
Quit your complaining. Respect different types of education from yours. Respect viewpoints different from yours.

God loves you,
Don

I can respect different viewpoints. I can’t respect an argument advocating stupidity. That is what you are doing. Further, advocating stupidity as a defense by labeling others elitists (when those others in fact make a non-elitist argument) is a horrible form of lie. It is not elitist to want everyone to have a good opportunity at scientific education - that is egalitarian.

I think you have much to reconsider.

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachler,

I understand more than you think I do.

I’ve learned a lot about science just the way you’ve enumerated in your opening paragraph.
My point is, science is not the only thing we need to understand.

A non sequitur. It was not argued that science is the only thing we need to understand.

We need to understand our choice of religion, understand our history because from those two, over the millenia, came first philosophy and then all the other accouterments of civilization. Religon nourished science, history recorded scientific findings and philosophy carried science out of the reformation into the public arena.

Another non sequitur. Whether or not we need to understand other things is not an argument for not needing to understand science.

And, science can neither understand nor be understood without the light of Christian faith, the records of history and the concepts of philosophy.

To some extent it can. I have a deep liberal arts background in a curriculum interlaced with philosophy, religion, literature and science, and I do believe it is better. But again, a non sequitur to the argument at hand.

Science has never, can’t now and won’t ever stand alone.
Can you understand that?

Another non sequitur. This argument was never made. Please stay on point.

Science must be held accountable by the public, that I understand. Do you?
Excuses don’t cut it to your employer and what sounds like excuses doesn’t cut it with the public, which is science’s employer.

The public is not necessarily science’s employer. Science is information and a method. Those USING science must be accountable. Would you ask a rock to be accountable, or would you ask those throwing the rock to be accountable. This seems to be where your confusion is.

Science advances on my nickel, that person’s dime, another’s dollar and yet others’ money.
And we have a right and duty to demand that science answers to us whose tax money funds its activities.

Not all science is funded with tax dollars. You seem to be forgetting this. Additionally, the purpose of science is to describe reality. To some extent what you are demanding is limited by reality. Science cannot change reality because of your tax dollars.

And, that’s where the bear poops in the woods.

A lot of what you write comes across as put downs and excuses. I can’t be the only voter who goes by results.

Then you are reading into things that are not written. Please don’t do that.

And, there’s just too many unpalatable and ungodly results reported by the media.

Often because the media itself is out to sell advertising and doesn’t understand the science either.

There’s a whole lot more I could say. If you want to know about me, the important things are in my profile. It’s late, I’m tired and I’m not going to rant.
So, this will have to do it.
If you can’t understand it, maybe you should learn more about human nature.

God loves you,
Don

I know a great deal about human nature. It is very easy to recognize what is bad and hope to change it, or at least to marginalize it.

 

[kbachler]

Scientists can’t create life.

Peace,
Ed

Scientists have created a replicating cell from man-made DNA. Perhaps that’s not creating life, because the definition of that is difficult (defining life itself is difficult.)

However, if we “tumbled upon” what a scientist created in a lab, on say Mars, we’d certainly call it life; so the argument is there.

 

[donsnow]

Sorry, this has nothing to do with science.

There are a MASSIVE NUMBER of uninformed voters. This is easily demonstrated and simultaneously shows that you are contradicting yourself - for you see it would be impossible (as you claim) for “elitists, progressives and internationalists” to be “hi-jacking our educational system and government” UNLESS there were a massive number of uniformed voters - because if the voters were so informed, they would simply vote and prevent such hijacking.

Consequently, your entire argument is demonstrated to be hogwash.

Consider simple things: what sells newspapers/news in general? Is it well-defined, informative stories on real issues (like how many people are killed by smoking each year?) or is it sensationalist articles on the latest hijacking? If the voters were informed, the focus would be on REAL ISSUES, and not faux issues. If the voters were informed, EARMARKS would not have a big space in news about the Federal budget, but entitlements would be the major issue.

Of COURSE we can judge, should judge, and DO judge. Consider the extreme case - suppose voters decided to vote based on horoscopes. Is this something we should encourage or discourage?

IF WE LOVE THEM, and DON’T judge them, then WE won’t have a basis on which to help them make better informed decisions.

THERE IS a difference in the quality of information.

You just contradicted yourself - because the above is not possible without judging.

Again, contradicting yourself.

Right. You can choose to be foolish. Does that make it a good choice?

I can respect different viewpoints. I can’t respect an argument advocating stupidity. That is what you are doing. Further, advocating stupidity as a defense by labeling others elitists (when those others in fact make a non-elitist argument) is a horrible form of lie. It is not elitist to want everyone to have a good opportunity at scientific education - that is egalitarian.

I think you have much to reconsider.

Hi, kbachler,

I don’t like to look like I’m hiding behind scripture, Jesus Christ is clear on this: Judge not lest ye be so judged.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

A non sequitur. It was not argued that science is the only thing we need to understand.

Another non sequitur. Whether or not we need to understand other things is not an argument for not needing to understand science.

To some extent it can. I have a deep liberal arts background in a curriculum interlaced with philosophy, religion, literature and science, and I do believe it is better. But again, a non sequitur to the argument at hand.

Another non sequitur. This argument was never made. Please stay on point.

The public is not necessarily science’s employer. Science is information and a method. Those USING science must be accountable. Would you ask a rock to be accountable, or would you ask those throwing the rock to be accountable. This seems to be where your confusion is.

Not all science is funded with tax dollars. You seem to be forgetting this. Additionally, the purpose of science is to describe reality. To some extent what you are demanding is limited by reality. Science cannot change reality because of your tax dollars.

Then you are reading into things that are not written. Please don’t do that.

Often because the media itself is out to sell advertising and doesn’t understand the science either.

I know a great deal about human nature. It is very easy to recognize what is bad and hope to change it, or at least to marginalize it.

Hi, kbachler,

I introduced the viewpoint that without history and philosophy, the meaning and significance pertaining to the findings of science is greatly reduced. Your accusation of my germane points as non-sequiters belittles your debate in my eyes.

Judge not, that you are not judged as you judge.

May you someday understand human nature like you think you do now.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Hi, kbachler,

I have read your posts #'s 121 and 122. They give the appearance that you were exerting great effort to be civil when you posted them. I hope you’ve calmed down, by now, so that I may reestablish communication with you.

I firmly believe that science has its place in our global civilization and in our USofA society and culture. I equally firmly believe that its proponents are bringing it out of place, when they put it first.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church comes first, especially on these forums.

Then the USofA comes second to me, a life member of the American Legion, the motto of which is, “God, country and family.”

Then, third comes my family and don’t you dare try to displace my family nor God family from me.

Then, comes my friends.

Then, comes any consideration of other issues such as history, philosophy, education, economics, science, health and other medical considerations, politics, military, commerce and all the other establishments of a civilized society in any nation.

Science has its place: which includes in the class room; in the laboratory; on each job which employs science (and by the way, it’s the ignorant person’s dollar as well as mine and all the other common folks dollars which buy products produced because of science, so the dollars spent on science coming from the populace is still where the bear poops in the woods); but not in the ordinary considerations of most people; and, you will notice in my personal list of priorities, which must be similar to other common people’s personal priorities, not first.

Neither science nor other establishments of the secular world may come first.

What part of “don’t have to” and “no”, don’t you understand?

Science simply does not come first.
God and His Holy Roman Catholic Church come first.
Science simply does not come second.
The United States of America and our 1792 Constitution, and their preservation to keep us a free country with each and every citizen endowed with certain and specific God given rights and liberties, comes second.
Then, science and the love of science does not come third.
Our families and love of them, come third.
Then, the care of science does not come fourth.
The care of our friends comes fourth.

Citizen kbachler, if you and other citizens who think like you do kept science in its place, then church people wouldn’t have to push it back into its place for you and your ilk.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachler,
I have read your posts #'s 121 and 122. They give the appearance that you were exerting great effort to be civil when you posted them. I hope you’ve calmed down, by now, so that I may reestablish communication with you.

I don’t know why you think that they give that appearance.

I firmly believe that science has its place in our global civilization and in our USofA society and culture. I equally firmly believe that its proponents are bringing it out of place, when they put it first.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church comes first, especially on these forums.

I am sorry to vehemently disagree. God always comes first.

Then the USofA comes second to me, a life member of the American Legion, the motto of which is, “God, country and family.”

Then, third comes my family and don’t you dare try to displace my family nor God family from me.

Then, comes my friends.

Then, comes any consideration of other issues such as history, philosophy, education, economics, science, health and other medical considerations, politics, military, commerce and all the other establishments of a civilized society in any nation.

Such considerations need to come higher, or you can’t put the things in the order you think you can.

Science has its place: which includes in the class room; in the laboratory; on each job which employs science (and by the way, it’s the ignorant person’s dollar as well as mine and all the other common folks dollars which buy products produced because of science, so the dollars spent on science coming from the populace is still where the bear poops in the woods); but not in the ordinary considerations of most people; and, you will notice in my personal list of priorities, which must be similar to other common people’s personal priorities, not first.

In a democracy, where the ordinary considerations of most people result in votes and commerce, and therefore “voting with dollars” - and where science develops and provides goods - then those people have a responsibility to all the other citizens to have a rudimentary understanding of science.

Neither science nor other establishments of the secular world may come first.

What part of “don’t have to” and “no”, don’t you understand?

Science simply does not come first.
God and His Holy Roman Catholic Church come first.
Science simply does not come second.
The United States of America and our 1792 Constitution, and their preservation to keep us a free country with each and every citizen endowed with certain and specific God given rights and liberties, comes second.
Then, science and the love of science does not come third.
Our families and love of them, come third.
Then, the care of science does not come fourth.
The care of our friends comes fourth.

Citizen kbachler, if you and other citizens who think like you do kept science in its place, then church people wouldn’t have to push it back into its place for you and your ilk.

God loves you,
Don

Fine, Don.

Then, give up all your technology, all your commerce, and go live in the woods. Either ACCEPT the responsibility you have to understand science and its impact on society, or do without, because to do otherwise is to be hypocritical.

Which will it be?

 

[Peter_John]

Don’t forget:

Stem Cell Research
Abortion
human cloning
Creating sentinent life
Creating human/animal hybrids
Same-sex marriage: Animal Testing

Well let’s just go back to the dark ages because we do not like what some people do with knowledge. the biggest challenge we face is polarized thinking. I do not think many people realize how enemies of Christ use polarized and compartmentalized thinking to manipulate Christians.

 

[JaredM]

I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc.

Yikes! They better get off the internet because it was created by the Devil! Reminds me of when Stephen Colbert joked that Jesus “buried” the dinosaur bones in order to strengthen our faith.

Catholics aren’t fundamentalist Protestants. The Catholic Church and science are not incompatible with each other but are one in the same. Many of the word’s most leading biologists, scientists, astronomers, etc. have been Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

Well let’s just go back to the dark ages because we do not like what some people do with knowledge. the biggest challenge we face is polarized thinking. I do not think many people realize how enemies of Christ use polarized and compartmentalized thinking to manipulate Christians.

THE MIDDLE AGES

During the past 300 years, Protestant and Rationalist, politicians have dominated the writing of British and European history. They assured their peoples that their rule was preferable to that of previous ages. This has often been effective in quietening agitation for greater social justice. As many of the philosophers and authors supporting the kings and politicians were anti-Catholic or anti-Christian, the cultural contribution of the Catholic Middle Ages, and its superiority in many respects to contemporary standards, has been ignored, ridiculed or treated as of little significance.
The Middle Ages are often depicted as a time of laughable ignorance with little interest in education, widespread religious superstition, rejection of the scientific method based on experiments and logical thinking, extreme social injustice and an attitude of fatalism when faced with disease. Many have been led to confuse the Middle Ages with the feudal ‘Dark Ages’.

more…

 

[Peter_John]

THE MIDDLE AGES

During the past 300 years, Protestant and Rationalist, politicians have dominated the writing of British and European history. They assured their peoples that their rule was preferable to that of previous ages. This has often been effective in quietening agitation for greater social justice. As many of the philosophers and authors supporting the kings and politicians were anti-Catholic or anti-Christian, the cultural contribution of the Catholic Middle Ages, and its superiority in many respects to contemporary standards, has been ignored, ridiculed or treated as of little significance.
The Middle Ages are often depicted as a time of laughable ignorance with little interest in education, widespread religious superstition, rejection of the scientific method based on experiments and logical thinking, extreme social injustice and an attitude of fatalism when faced with disease. Many have been led to confuse the Middle Ages with the feudal ‘Dark Ages’.

more…

Actually, I cannot agree with you more. Even the “Dark Ages” were not so dark. Throughout history whenver a dominant society has collapsed the subsequent civilization has had to reinvent everything. While the Western world floundered in feudalism and ignorance ( depsite the enlightment of Byzantium) Catholic monks preserved the records of Rome and Greece without regard for the meaning, thus making them available when movable type and printing came of age. It may have saved a thousand years of re-inventing the figurative wheel.

 

[donsnow]

I don’t know why you think that they give that appearance.

I am sorry to vehemently disagree. God always comes first.

Such considerations need to come higher, or you can’t put the things in the order you think you can.

In a democracy, where the ordinary considerations of most people result in votes and commerce, and therefore “voting with dollars” - and where science develops and provides goods - then those people have a responsibility to all the other citizens to have a rudimentary understanding of science.

Fine, Don.

Then, give up all your technology, all your commerce, and go live in the woods. Either ACCEPT the responsibility you have to understand science and its impact on society, or do without, because to do otherwise is to be hypocritical.

Which will it be?

Hi, kbachler,

Putting the Holy Roman Catholic Church first puts God first.

No. I am responsible for my choices, just like you and every body else.

Basically, you and I disagree on which priority to give science.

I see science as a small part of a greater whole. Without religion, without history, without philosophy, there could be no science. If scientists and fanatic proponents of science put away those roots, science will fall.

And, that, citizen kbachler, is where we disagree. I don’t need to understand science, to use it.

The fruits of science is a whole different debate.

We are discussing why people of faith don’t put science at a higher priority. So, you preach science instead of Christ crucified and I’ll hang on to His cross. And, try to do what He says to do. That’s my first responsibility because I’m Christian. Then, understanding the establishments of our age has the lower priority.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachler,

Putting the Holy Roman Catholic Church first puts God first.

That is a contradiction, and clearly historically has not always been true.

No. I am responsible for my choices, just like you and every body else.

Basically, you and I disagree on which priority to give science.

Perhaps, but you are hypocritical about it, because you continue to use the benefits of science, criticize what you don’t understand, and then blame science instead of learning to understand it.

I accept that there is much I don’t know, I accept what we can know from science, and I look to understand at how my Lord used the tools He created in the universe that are revealed through scientific study.

There is a huge difference.

I see science as a small part of a greater whole. Without religion, without history, without philosophy, there could be no science. If scientists and fanatic proponents of science put away those roots, science will fall.

History is very important, as is religion. But its part is not small, and increases daily, whether you like it or not.

And, that, citizen kbachler, is where we disagree. I don’t need to understand science, to use it.

To some extent true, but to some extent not. But you need to understand it to correctly criticize it rather than making arguments from ignorance.

The fruits of science is a whole different debate.

There is little doubt that science has been fruitful; the question is how can we make it even more fruitful.

We are discussing why people of faith don’t put science at a higher priority. So, you preach science instead of Christ crucified and I’ll hang on to His cross. And, try to do what He says to do. That’s my first responsibility because I’m Christian. Then, understanding the establishments of our age has the lower priority.

God loves you,
Don

You misunderstand and mischaracterize what I teach. I do not like when you tell lies about me. I do not preach science instead of Christ, I believe in both. Your first responsibility as a Christian was given to you: “Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind”. But you resent the last piece and reject it.

 

[edwest2]

I think people misunderstand what science does and who funds it. First, large corporations in the electronics, medical and energy fields are looking for remedies, faster and better devices and better ways to extract oil and gas and develop alternative energy sources.

The rest is funded by the military. The goal is to find something smaller, faster and cheaper to kill as many people as possible. And that work, by necessity, is mostly done in secret.

Science describes only a small fraction of reality. Leading scientists reject God. I think an argument can be made that their work has infuenced their thinking.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[kbachler]

I think people misunderstand what science does and who funds it. First, large corporations in the electronics, medical and energy fields are looking for remedies, faster and better devices and better ways to extract oil and gas and develop alternative energy sources.

The rest is funded by the military. The goal is to find something smaller, faster and cheaper to kill as many people as possible. And that work, by necessity, is mostly done in secret.

Science describes only a small fraction of reality. Leading scientists reject God. I think an argument can be made that their work has infuenced their thinking.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Peace,
Ed

Many leading scientists do not reject God. Some of the scientific reaction is a counter reaction to the unscientific (and often irrational) zeal expressed by religious folk. (If those who were religious would better embrace and learn science, and speak the language of science, they could have rational discussions about these topics.) Much science is done by entities other than corporations (even so, that doesn’t invalidate the results.) Much science is done in universities, some of which is funded by corporations, some by the government, but some by foundations.

Consider for example Fermilab. Fermilab is a Department of Energy national laboratory specializing in high-energy particle physics. As of January 1, 2007, Fermilab is operated by the Fermi Research Alliance, a joint venture of the University of Chicago and the Universities Research Association (URA). This then, a major particle physics laboratory, doesn’t fall into any of the categories for funding/management that you outlined above.

Science describes all of reality.

Perhaps it’s not other people that misunderstand science.

 

[edwest2]

Fermilab? What kind of example is that? Sure, there are foundations and even private investment groups that run sophisticated projects, but what happens when they’re done? The military grabs anything even remotely war related. Exoskeleton research? Sure. It’s being tested right now by the military. New prosthetic from DEKA? The military is ready to pick up the final version.

Science is not about reality per se. It needs to turn out a product that can turn a profit soon or the money goes elsewhere. I read about the Japanese inventor who brought a certain color LED to market. He wasn’t out to describe reality. In fact, his finished product had one feature that was considered a flaw by those who tried before him. He got it done.

Churches should be circumspect about claims that science cannot demonstrate are true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kbachler]

Fermilab? What kind of example is that?

A standard example. You make it sound as though there is no science. You WAY overstate your case. So I show with a single example that you did so.

Sure, there are foundations and even private investment groups that run sophisticated projects, but what happens when they’re done?

A great deal of research is actually done this way through universities.

The military grabs anything even remotely war related. Exoskeleton research? Sure. It’s being tested right now by the military. New prosthetic from DEKA? The military is ready to pick up the final version.

So? There are other applications also, not just the military. Should we not do prosthetic research because a former soldier might get one? Is that what you are really arguing?

Science is not about reality per se.

Science is ONLY about reality. Sorry, adding your spin doesn’t change that. Try actually reading books about science.

It needs to turn out a product that can turn a profit soon or the money goes elsewhere. I read about the Japanese inventor who brought a certain color LED to market. He wasn’t out to describe reality. In fact, his finished product had one feature that was considered a flaw by those who tried before him. He got it done.

Don’t confuse technology with science. There are aspects of both in some things.

Churches should be circumspect about claims that science cannot demonstrate are true.

Huh?

 

[donsnow]

That is a contradiction, and clearly historically has not always been true.

No. I am responsible for my choices, just like you and every body else.

Perhaps, but you are hypocritical about it, because you continue to use the benefits of science, criticize what you don’t understand, and then blame science instead of learning to understand it.

I accept that there is much I don’t know, I accept what we can know from science, and I look to understand at how my Lord used the tools He created in the universe that are revealed through scientific study.

There is a huge difference.

History is very important, as is religion. But its part is not small, and increases daily, whether you like it or not.

To some extent true, but to some extent not. But you need to understand it to correctly criticize it rather than making arguments from ignorance.

There is little doubt that science has been fruitful; the question is how can we make it even more fruitful.

You misunderstand and mischaracterize what I teach. I do not like when you tell lies about me. I do not preach science instead of Christ, I believe in both. Your first responsibility as a Christian was given to you: “Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind”. But you resent the last piece and reject it.

Well, kbachler,

I’m sure glad it’s Jesus the Christ who will judge me and others on Judgment Day and that you won’t.

Where have I told lies about you?

You have not persuaded me that I should give science any more priority than any other establishment. I seriously doubt you ever will.

In closing, it’s not really your place to tell me where to exercise my understanding. That’s my choice. And, it’s also my choice whether I obey God when He tells me to “Wait.”, or if I run out and start enacting my own personal ideas. While I wait, I am reviewing a lot of my personal ideas and issues.
The place that science has in my life is not the same place that science has in your life, and I think you are misled to expect people to prioritize science like you and the instructor who taught you that priority do.
That is not a reasonable expectation. I know I don’t expect the world to go by what I say or learned. That’s for me because God gives some of us, each different lessons just like He gives all of us the other same lessons.
We aren’t clones nor robots and God treats us not only as part of the mystical body of His Son, but also as the individuals we are.

Now, I would like to make one simple request from you. Please, no more ad hominum attacks on me.
Thank you.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Well, kbachler,

I’m sure glad it’s Jesus the Christ who will judge me and others on Judgment Day and that you won’t.

I am glad also. I think that Paul’s admonitions about not putting stumbling blocks in front of others is something that you should consider.

Where have I told lies about you?

Do you want more than one? Here is one for you:

So, you preach science instead of Christ crucified

That, sir, is an out and out lie.

You have not persuaded me that I should give science any more priority than any other establishment. I seriously doubt you ever will.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

In closing, it’s not really your place to tell me where to exercise my understanding. That’s my choice.

It IS your choice. And likewise it is MY CHOICE to tell you when you are incorrect in your understanding of science, OR when you are putting obstacles in front of other potential believers, OR when you are misinterpreting the Bible. It is also YOUR CHOICE to examine yourself and consider whether there may be merit to these criticisms and something to learn, or not.

I examine myself constantly. I ask for those around me to give me feedback. I look for ways to improve daily. As a result, I am very comfortable in who I am. I examine my life.

What I see here, Donsnow, is someone who clings to a position without listening to anyone else even to the point to consider whether it is POSSIBLE that something else may be learned. Your position is right, everyone else is wrong, so why bother?

And, it’s also my choice whether I obey God when He tells me to “Wait.”, or if I run out and start enacting my own personal ideas. While I wait, I am reviewing a lot of my personal ideas and issues.

You are already acting on your personal ideas.

The place that science has in my life is not the same place that science has in your life, and I think you are misled to expect people to prioritize science like you and the instructor who taught you that priority do.

I don’t expect you or anyone else to have it as the same priority. Nor do I think you have any understanding of what the level of priority is of science in my life (it is relatively low, actually). But I do reasonably expect people to have it as a sufficient place in their lives to understand issues. You, like most others, do not. However, most others are not haughty about it, or claiming that they know the truth and go espousing ideas, when in fact their position is quite narrow and fallible. But doing so, you lead others astray, both from Christianity and the ways of Christ, and from science. Stopping that is a much higher priority for me.

That is not a reasonable expectation. I know I don’t expect the world to go by what I say or learned. That’s for me because God gives some of us, each different lessons just like He gives all of us the other same lessons.

It is a reasonable expectation for you to have a modicum of science knowledge as well as all others. It is also a reasonable expectation of you that you not act like you know things that you do not know, and that you do not lead others astray.

We aren’t clones nor robots and God treats us not only as part of the mystical body of His Son, but also as the individuals we are.

And yet we should all have a modicum of common belief. In our duty to each other, we each need a modicum of scientific knowledge.

Now, I would like to make one simple request from you. Please, no more ad hominum attacks on me.
Thank you.

God loves you,
Don

I haven’t made any ad hominem attacks. If you claim to know things that you do not in fact know, then I will challenge your claims and lack of knowledge. I expect the truth from you Donsnow. If you don’t provide it, then you can expect to be challenged again.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

Science describes all of reality.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t describe religion, even if some scientists mistakenly think it does.

It certainly doesn’t describe wisdom. Where was the wisdom in creating nuclear weapons sufficient to bring on Armageddon?